This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजजस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 ससीी..जजीी..--डडीी..एएxललx..x--GससIDाा..H--33x11x00x 5522002255--226633448888 CCGG--DDLLxx--WWxG--I33D11E00x55xx22 002255--226633448888 प्राजधकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्त ाजिक WEEKLY स.ं 19] नइ ददल्ल ी, मइ 18—मइ 24, 2025, िजनवार/वैिाख 28—ज्य ष्े ठ 3, 1947 No. 19] NEW DELHI, MAY 18—MAY 24, 2025, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 28– JYAISTHA 3, 1947 आस भाग म ेंजभन्न ृष्ृ ठ स्‍ं य ा दी जाती ि ैजजसस ेदक यि ृथृ क संकलन के प ृ म ेंरखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation भाग II—खण्ड 3—ईृ-खण्ड (ii) PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii) भारत सरकार के मत्रं ालयों (रक्षा मत्रं ालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए साजं वजधक अदिे और ऄजधसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence) जवत्त मत्रं ालय (जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 809.—भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम ऄजधजनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करत े हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री ददनेि ृतं (जन्म जतजथ: 6.5.1967), जनयुि बीमांकक और काययृालक जनदेिक (बीमांदकक), केन्रीय कायायलय, मुम्बइ को ददनांक 1.6.2025 को या ईसके ृश्चात ृद का काययभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से ईनकी ऄजधवर्षिता की तारीख (ऄथातय 31.5.2027) तक ऄथवा ऄगल ेअदिे ों तक, जो भी ृिल े िो, 2,05,400 रुृए से 2,24,400 रुृए के वेतनमान म ेंभारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम में प्रबंध जनदेिक (एमडी) के ृद ृर जनयुि करती ि।ै [फा. सं. ए-11011/07/2024-बीमा-I] नेिा चौिान, संयुि जनदेिक 3117 GI/2025 (2093)2094 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 809.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Dinesh Pant (DOB : 06.05.1967), Appointed Actuary and Executive Director (Actuarial), Central Office, Mumbai as Managing Director (MD), LIC of India in the pay scale of Rs.2,05,400/- to Rs.2,24,400/- with effect from the date of assumption of charge of office on or after 01.06.2025 and upto the date of his superannuation (i.e. 31.05.2027), or until further orders, whichever is earlier. [F. No. A-11011/07/2024-Ins. I] NEHA CHAUHAN, Jt. Director नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 810.—भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम ऄजधजनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री रत् नाकर ृटनायक (जन्म जतजथ: 24.3.1968), काययृालक जनदेिक (अइएनवीटी – फ्रंट अदफस एवं सीअइओ), केन्रीय कायायलय, मुम्बइ को ददनांक 1.6.2025 को या ईसके ृश्चात ृद का काययभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से ईनकी ऄजधवर्षिता की तारीख (ऄथायत 31.3.2028) तक ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, 2,05,400 रुृए से 2,24,400 रुृए के वेतनमान में भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम में प्रबंध जनदिे क (एमडी) के ृद ृर जनयुि करती ि।ै [फा. सं. ए-11011/07/2024-बीमा-I] नेिा चौिान, संयुि जनदेिक New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 810.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ratnakar Patnaik (DOB : 24.03.1968), Executive Director (INVT – Front Office & CIO), Central Office, Mumbai as Managing Director (MD), LIC of India in the pay scale of Rs.2,05,400/- to Rs.2,24,400/- with effect from the date of assumption of charge of office on or after 01.06.2025 and upto the date of his superannuation (i.e. 31.03.2028), or until further orders, whichever is earlier. [F. No A-11011/07/2024-Ins. I] NEHA CHAUHAN, Jt. Director (राजस्ट्व जवभाग) (केंरीय ऄप्रत्य क्ष कर एव ंसीमा िल्ु क ) नइ ददल्ली, 15 ऄप्रलै , 2025 का.अ. 811.—चूूँदक केंर सरकार की राय ि ै दक श्री नवनीत कुमार, ईृायुि (जनलजम्बत) से संबंजधत जवभागीय जाूँच के ईद्दश्े य स े श्री ददलीृ कुमार दास, श्री अलोक घोि, मोिम्मद सििं ा मजलक ईफय बादिा और मोिम्मद नसीरुद्दीन को गवाि के प ृ में बुलाना अवश्यक ि।ै ऄतः ऄब जवभागीय जांच (गवािों की ईृजस्ट्थजत तथा दस्ट्तावेजों की प्रस्ट्तुजत का प्रवतयन) ऄजधजनयम, 1972 (1972 का 18) की धारा 4 की ईृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजि का प्रयोग करत े हुए, केन्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा सुश्री वैिाली नाआक लांजेवार, अयुि (अइअरएस, एम्प्लॉयमेंट कोड:980) को श्री ददलीृ कुमार दास, श्री अलोक घोि, मो. सिांिा मजलक ईफय बादिा तथा मो. नसीरुद्दीन नामक गवािों के संबंध में ऄजधजनयम की धारा 5 में जनर्ददष्ट िजि का प्रयोग करन े के जलए जांच प्राजधकारी के प ृ में ऄजधकृत करती ि।ै [फा. सं. सी.14011/09/2022-Ad.V ] मनीि कुमार सिाय, ईृ सजचव[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2095 (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS) New Delhi, the 15th April, 2025 S.O. 811.—WHEREAS the Central Government is of the opinion that for the purpose of departmental inquiry relating to Shri Navneet Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (Under suspension) it is necessary to summon as witnesses namely Shri Dilip Kumar Das, Shri Aloke Ghosh, Md Sahansha Mallick Alias Badsha and Md Nasiruddin. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section(l) of Section 4 of the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central Government hereby authorises Ms. Vaishali Naik Lanjewar, Commissioner (IRS, Emp code:980) as the inquiring authority to exercise the power specified in the section 5 of the Act in relation to witnesses namely Shri Dilip Kumar Das, Shri Aloke Ghosh, Md Sahansha Mallick Alias Badsha and Md Nasiruddin. [F. No. C.14011/09/2022-Ad.V] MANISH KUMAR SAHAY, Dy. Secy. जवदेि मन्त्रालय (सी.ृी.वी प्रभाग) नइ ददल्ली, 13 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 812.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय ऄजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के ऄजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के ऄनुसरण में वैधाजनक अदेि । एतद्द्वारा,सरकार भारत के दतू ावास, कुवैत मेूँ श्री नवीन यादव, सिायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी, को मइ 13,2025 स े सिायक कांसुलर ऄजधकारी के प ृ म ेंकांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवयिन करन े के जलए ऄजधकृत करती ि।ै [फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(20)] एस.अर.एच. फिमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (CPV Division) New Delhi, the 13th May, 2025 S.O. 812.—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 Sh. Naveen Yadav, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Kuwait, to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from May 13, 2025. [F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(20)] S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV) नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 813.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय ऄजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के ऄजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के ऄनुसरण में वैधाजनक अदेि । एतदद्व् ारा, सरकार भारत के दतू ावास, बेप त म ेूँ श्री सुजमत कुमार ससघल, सिायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी, को मइ 14,2025 स े सिायक कांसुलर ऄजधकारी के प ृ म ेंकांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवयिन करन े के जलए ऄजधकृत करती ि।ै [फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(21)] एस.अर.एच. फिमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)2096 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 813.—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 Sh. Sumit Kumar Singhal, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Beirut, to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from May 14, 2025. [F. No. T. 4330/01/2025(21)] S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV) नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 814.—सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी (मध्यस्ट्थों के जलए ददिाजनदेि और जडजजटल मीजडया अचार संजिता) जनयम, 2021 के जनयम 3 के ईृ-जनयम (1) के खडं (घ) के साथ ृठठत सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी ऄजधजनयम, 2000 (2000 का 21) की धारा 79 की ईृ-धारा (3) के खंड (ख) के ऄनुसरण में, केंर सरकार जवदेि मंत्रालय स े संबंजधत गरै कानूनी सूचना के संबंध म ें मध्यस्ट्थों को जनष्कासन नोठटस जारी करन े के जलए जवदेि मंत्रालय के जवदेि प्रचार एव ं लोक राजनय प्रभाग के ऄवर सजचव (जडजजटल राजनय) को नोडल ऄजधकारी के प ृ में नाजमत करती ि।ै [फा. स.ं क्य/ू एक्सएमएम/551/02/2025] राजेि ृठरिार, जनदेिक (एक्सृीडी) New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 814.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub section (3) of section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Central Government hereby designates Under Secretary (Digital Diplomacy) of External Publicity & Public Diplomacy Division, Ministry of External Affairs as the nodal officer for issuing take down notice to the intermediaries in respect to unlawful information pertaining to Ministry of External Affairs. [F. No. Q/XMM/551/02/2025) RAJESH PARIHAR, Director (XPD) अवासन और ििरी काय य मन्त्रालय नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 815.—केन् रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा अवासन और ििरी कायय मन्त्रालय के प्रिसजनक जनयंतानाधीन िाईससग एण् ड ऄबयन डेवलृमेंट कॉरृोरेिन जलजमटेड(िडको) के जनम्न जलजखत कायायलय जजसके 80% से ऄजधक ऄजधकाठरयों और कमयचाठरयों ने सिदी का काययसाधक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया ि ै , को राजभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के जनयम 10 के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄंतगयत ऄजघसूजचत करती ि:ै 1. िडको क्षेत्रीय कायायलय बगें लप ु , मजणृाल सेंटर नॉथर ब्ल ॉक , 7वीं मंजजल यूजनट सं. 703 और 704, 47, जडेकेंसन रोड, बेंगलुप -560042 (कनायटक) [फा. सं इ-11017/5/2023-सिदी] गोृाल प्रसाद, अर्षथक सलािकार MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 815.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule10 of Offcial Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rule, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited under administrative control of Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, where more than 80% of Officers/empolyees have attained working knowledge of Hindi: 1. HUDCO Regional Office-Bengaluru, Manipal Centre, North Block, 7th Floor, Unit 703 & 704, #47, Dickenson Road Bengaluru-560042 (Karnataka) [F. No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi] GOPAL PRASAD, Economic Advisor[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2097 आलक्े र ॉजनकी और सचू ना प्रौद्योजगकी मत्रं ालय नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 816. —केन्र सरकार एतद् द्वारा, राजभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली , 1976 के जनयम 10 के ईृ जनयम (4) के ऄनसु रण म,ें आलेक्र ॉजनकी और सचू ना प्रौद्योजगकी मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के ऄंतगयत अन े वाली राष्ट्रीय आलक्े रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (नाआजलट) नामक स्ट्वायत्त संस्ट् था के नीच े ददए ऄनुसार ृाचूँ (05) केंरों, जजनके 80% से ऄजधक कमयचाठरयों ने जिन्दी का काययसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया ि,ै को ऄजधसूजचत करती ि:ै 1. राष्ट्रीय आलेक्रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (नाआजलट), कुरुक्षेत्र केंर ,राजकीय बहुतकनीकी ृठरसर, एनएच 44, कुरुक्षेत्र, िठरयाणा - 136131 2. राष्ट्रीय आलेक्रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (नाआजलट), िठरद्वार केंर, जद्वतीय तल, राजकीय ृॉजलटेदिक भवन, प्लॉट सं्‍या- 6सी, सेक्टर-II, जसडकुल, िठरद्वार- 249403 3. राष्ट्रीय आलेक्रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (नाआजलट), ऄजमरे केंर, गांव - कोिड़ा, कोटा रोड, तिसील - केकड़ी, जजला - ऄजमरे -305408, राजस्ट्थान 4. राष्ट्रीय आलेक्रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (नाआजलट), भुवनेश्वर केंर, तीसरी मंजजल, ईत्तर की ओर , सी ए सी टॉवर, अचायय जविार, भुवनेश्वर, ओजडिा – 751013 5. राष्ट्रीय आलेक्रॉजनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान (नाआजलट), दमन केंर, गवनयमेंट ृॉजलटेदिक कैंृस, वारकुंड, दमन (य ू. टी.) – 396210 [फा. सं. 7(1)/2020-जि.ऄ] सुश्री तूजलका ृाण्डेय, वैज्ञाजनक ‘जी’ MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 816.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following five (05) centres of National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), an autonomous Society, under the administrative control of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi: 1. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Kurukshetra Centre, Government Polytechnic Campus, NH 44, Kurukshetra, Haryana - 136131 2. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Haridwar Centre, 2nd Floor, Government Polytechnic Bhawan, Plot No. 6C, Sector-II, SIDCUL, Haridwar- 249403 3. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Ajmer Centre, Village - Kohda, Kota Road, Tehsil - Kekri, District - Ajmer-305408, Rajasthan 4. National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT), Bhubaneswar Centre, 3rd Floor, North Side, OCAC Tower, Acharya Vihar, Odisha – 751013 5. National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT), Daman Centre, Government Polytechnic campus, Varkund, Daman (U.T.) – 396210 [F. No. 7(1)/2020-H.S] Ms. TULIKA PANDEY, Scientist ‘G’2098 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] श्रम एव ंरोजगार मत्रं ालय नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 817.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ें केन्रीय सरकार लाआफ आन्सरु ेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री लक्ष्मीनारायण के बीच ऄनुबंध म ें जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृरु , ृचं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-03/2009) को जैसा दक ऄनलु ग्नक म ें ददखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 14.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल-17012/52/2008-अइअर(एम)] ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 03/2009) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Laxminarayan which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.05.2025. [No. L-17012/52/2008-IR(M)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/03/2009 Date: 25.03.2025. Party No. 1 : The Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Near Dafrin Hospital, Shrikrushnapet, Amravati-444 601. : The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, ―Yogakshema‖ Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021. Versus Party No. 2 : Shri Laxminaryan S/o. Sh.Sarjuprasad Jaiswal, R/o. 24-A, New Colony, Dastur Nagar, Amravati, Distt. Amravati. (MS) AWARD (Dated: 25thMarch, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of LIC of India, Divisional Office and their workman, Shri L.S.Jaiswal, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-17012/52/2008-IR (M) dated 29.01.2009, with the following schedule:- ―Whether the action of the Sr. Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) and the Zonal Manager (Appellate Authority) of the LIC of India in imposing the penalty of ‗Dismissal‘ and recovery of Rs. 71,750/- from the applicant workman, Shri L.S. Jaiswal is justified, legal and proper? What relief the workman is entitled to?‖[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2099 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 Shri Laxminarayan, (―the workman‖ in short) filed the statement of claimand the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India (―party no.1‖ in short) filed the written statement. Both parties lead respective evidence and cross-examined the witnesses, and filed their written notes of arguments also. Ministry time to time encourages settling the cases pending before the court by means of mediation or by presenting the cases before lokadalat. In the present case during the course of argument efforts were made by this court to settle the case in hand. Both the parties after brief discussion agreed to settle the matter amicably. Both parties have settled the dispute in terms and conditions mentioned in the memo of compromise Hence, it is ordered:- ORDER ―The reference is answered in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement mentioned in the memo of compromise. The memo of settlement dated 25.03.2025 is made part of the award.‖ Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 818.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ें केन्रीय सरकार ऄल्राटेक सीमटें जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और जनरल मज़दरू सभा (एचएमएस) के बीच ऄनबु धं म ें जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृरु , ृचं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-28/2022-23) को जैसा दक ऄनलु ग्नक म ें ददखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 14.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल-29011/45/2022-अइअर(एम)] ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2022-23) 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 UltraTech Cement Limited and General Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.05.2025. [No. L-29011/45/2022-IR(M)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/28/2022-23 Date: 24.04.2025. Party No.1: The General Manager, Ultratech Cement Ltd., (Unit – Nagpur Cement Works,) Village – Ashti – Navegaon Tarsa, P.O. Tarsa Via Mouda, Mouda – Ramtek Road, Nagpur – 441106.2100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] V/s. Party No.2: The General Secretary, General Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), 204, Nav Saraswati Sadan, Opp. – New Girls School, Ram Maruti Road, Thane (W) 400602. AWARD (Dated: 24th April, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Ultratech Cement Limited, and their workmen Shri Kushal Arun Potbhare and Shri Roshan Ishwar Zalke, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-29011/45/2022-IR(M) dated 25.11.2022, with the following schedule:- ―Whether the demand raised by General Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), Thane in respect of workmen Shri Kushal Arun Potbhare and Shri Roshan Ishwar Zalke against the action of the management of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Unit-Nagpur Cement Works), Navegaon, Mouda-Ramtek Road, Distt. Nagpur for terminating the services and not paying their wages of last 4 months is proper, legal and justified? If yes, what relief these workmen are entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 21/09/2023. No statemen of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court for long time. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The demand raised by General Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), Thane in respect of workmen Shri Kushal Arun Potbhare and Shri Roshan Ishwar Zalke against the action of the management of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Unit-Nagpur Cement Works), Navegaon, Mouda-Ramtek Road, Distt. Nagpur for terminating the services and not paying their wages of last 4 months is improper, illegal and unjustified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 819.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ें केन्रीय सरकार लाआफ आन्सरु ेंस कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री मनोज सावतं एंड २२ ऄन्य के बीच ऄनुबंध म ें जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृरु , ृचं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-26/2023) को जैसा दक ऄनलु ग्नक म ें ददखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ैजो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 14.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-54] ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 26/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpuras shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Manoj Sawant and 22 others which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.05.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-54] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2101 ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/26/2023 Date: 08.04.2025. Party No.1: The Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office ‗Jeevan Prakash‘ Shrikrishna Peth, Amravati - 444601 V/s. Party No.2: Shri Manoj Sawant & 22 Others, R/o Namdev Mandir Road, Gadge Nagar, Amravati – 444603. AWARD (Dated: 08th April, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Amravati through its Sr. Divisional Manager, and their workman Shri. Manoj Sawant & 22 others, for adjudication, as per letter No. 24(55)/2023-IR dated 21.12.2023, with the following schedule:- 1.―Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Amravati in not regularizing the services of 16 workmen (Annexure-I) is legal and justified in the eye of law or not? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?‖ 2. ―Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Amravati in not giving facility of Mediclaim to the workman Shri Manoj Sawant & 22 others (Annexure-2) is legal and justified in the eye of law or not? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. N.K. Ghagarkar is present before the Court. None is present on behalf of the petitioner despite service of notice. No statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since very beginning of the case. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER 1.The action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Amravati in not regularizing the services of 16 workmen (Annexure-I) is legal and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. 2.The action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Amravati in not giving facility of Mediclaim to the workman Shri Manoj Sawant & 22 others (Annexure-2) is legal and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 14 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 820.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मेसस य एसीसी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ऄजभिके के बीच ऄनबु ंध म ें जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृरु , ृचं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.-08/2019-20) को जैसा दक ऄनुलग्नक म ें ददखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ैजो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 14.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l [सं. एल-29012/02/2019-अइअर(एम)] ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव2102 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 14th May, 2025 S.O. 820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2019-20) 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 M/s ACC Ltd. and Shri Abhishek which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.05.2025. [No. L-29012/02/2019-IR(M)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/08/2019-20 Date: 07.04.2025. Party No.1: 1) The Managing Director, M/s ACC Limited, Chanda Cement Works, Post – Cement Nagar, Ghugus, District – Chandrapur (MS) – 442502. 2) The Cluster Hear of Plant Head, M/s ACC Limited, Chanda Cement Works, Post – Cement Nagar, Ghugus, District – Chandrapur (MS) – 442502. V/s. Party No.2: Shri Abhishek, S/o Sh. Thakursingh Rathod, R/o TRT 64/6, ACC Colony, Near Union Office, Wadi, Gulbarga, Karnataka – 585225. AWARD (Dated: 07th April, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of M/s ACC Limited, and their workman Shri. Abhishek S/o Shri Thakursingh Rathod for adjudication, as per letter No. L-29012/2/2019-IR(M) dated 22.04.2019, with the following schedule:- ―Whether the action of the management of ACC Ltd, through the Plant Director, Chanda Cement works, Post-Cement Nagar, District-Chandrapur and the Cluster Head or Plant Head of M/s ACC Ltd, Chanda Cement Works, Post-Cement Nagar, District-Chandrapur in terminating the service of the applicant Shri Abhishek S/o Shri Thakursingh Rathod w.e.f. 07.04.2016 and not considering the request of the applicant to reinstate in service with continuity and to pay full back wages from the date of termination to till his actual reinstatement in service of the applicant is just, fair or legal? If not, to what relief the concerned disputant is entitled to? What direction(s), if any, are necessary in the matter?‖ 2. Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 04.03.2020. Although statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner but no written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back i.e. near about five years. It appears that, petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The action of the management of ACC Ltd, through the Plant Director, Chanda Cement works, Post- Cement Nagar, District-Chandrapur and the Cluster Head or Plant Head of M/s ACC Ltd, Chanda Cement Works, Post-Cement Nagar, District-Chandrapur in terminating the service of the applicant Shri Abhishek S/o Shri Thakursingh Rathod w.e.f. 07.04.2016 and not considering the request of the applicant to reinstate in service with continuity and to pay full back wages from the date of termination to till his actual reinstatement in service of the applicant is just, fair or legal, The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2103 नइ ददल्ली, 15 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 821.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (11/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12011/20/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch- II)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 15th May, 2025 S.O. 821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.11/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12011/20/2019- IR(B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE DATED : 24th APRIL 2025 PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB. Presiding Officer C R No. 11/2019 I Party II Party The General Secretary, The General Manager, Corporation Bank Employees Union, Union Bank of India, Human Resource Management CBEU, Golden Jubilee Hall, Opp. Sharada Division, Head Office, Mangaladevi Temple Road, Vidyalaya, PVS Kala Kunj Road, MANGALORE – 575 001. Kodialbail, MANGALORE – 575 003. Appearances I Party : Sri M Rama Rao Authorized Representative II Party : Sri Pradeep S Sawkar Advocate 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 12011/20/2019-IR(B-II) dated 25.0.2019 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ―The Act‖) (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication: SCHEDULE ―Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank, Mangalore, in discontinuing the practice of promotion of Part Time Sweepers into full time peons w.e.f. June, 2014 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled for?‖ 2. After registering the case the date of hearing was fixed as 04.10.2019 and the Claim Statement was filed by the I party and Counter Statement came to be filed on 31.10.2019. MW 1 examined on behalf of the II Party and fully cross-examined. Documentary evidence Ex M-1 to Ex M-7 are marked. Ex W-1 to Ex W-52104 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] are got marked by the I Party by confronting to MW 1. At this stage, during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute, the 1st Party filed a Memo dated 16.10.2024 stating that a Memorandum of Settlement has been drawn between the parties on 21.10.2021 and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the 1st Party has requested to pass an Award in terms of the Settlement entered into between the parties and to close the matter accordingly. 3. Perused the records. The I Party Union has filed a Memo dated 16.10.2024 along with the Staff Circular No. 7520 dated 21.10.2021 and Memorandum of Settlement dated 21.10.2021 which bears the Original signatures of both the parties i.e., the I Party Union and the II Party Management Representatives. The Management has also filed a Memo dated 18.12.2024 in which the management has also stated that there was a settlement dated 21.10.2021 between both the parties. In the interest of justice it is found expedient to pass an Award in terms of the Settlement to give effect to its specific terms and stipulations to safeguard the rights and interests of the Parties connected. In view of the above, the reference is answered accordingly. The Reference is thus disposed off according to the terms of settlement. AWARD Reference is answered as settled as per the Terms and Conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 21.10.2021. The Memorandum of Settlement will form part of this Award. Transmit. (Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 24th April 2025) K .P. INDIRA, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 15 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 822.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj सेंरल बैंक ऑफ आंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@JeU;k;ky; ds iapkV ¼dUsnzh;½&14@2007 ¼lhvkbZ,l&30@2014½ ¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdVs h 060001472007½ izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/21/2007- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 15th May, 2025 S.O. 822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 14/2007(CIS-30/2014) (CNR- RJKT 060001472007) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/21/2007- IR(B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|kfsxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dUsnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kek]Z vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½ funs'Z k izdj.k dez kda %vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&14@2007¼lhvkbZ,l&30@2014½ ¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdVs h060001472007½ fnukda LFkkfir% 17-09-2007 izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je e=a ky;] ubZ fnYyh d s vkn's k dz- ,y&12012@21@2007¼vkbvZ kj¼ch&kk½½ fn- 03-09-2007 funs'Z k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 e/; lR;ukjk;.k iq= jkeukFk e?s koky }kjk la;Dq r egkea=h] fgUn etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dkWykus h] Nkouh] dksVk &&ikzFkhZ Jfed[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2105 ,o a {k=s h; izca/kd] lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] flfoy ykbZUl] dksVk &&vikzFkhZ fu;kts d mifLFkr izkFkhZ Jfed dh vkjs ls izfrfuf/k%& Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp vizkFkhZ fu;kts d d s izfrfuf/k Jh ,l-ih- lkjs y oDr cgl mifLFkr o vkt oDr vf/kfu.k;Z vuiq fLFkrA %%vf/kfu.k;Z %% fnukda %17-01-2025 Hkkjr ljdkj] Je e=a ky;] ubZ fnYyh d s izklkafxd vkns'k fnukda 03-09-2007 d s tfj;s funs'Z k fookn] vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEckfs/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ dss vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.k;Z kFk Z fuEukulq kj izkIr gqvkA "Whther the workman Shri Satyanarayan S/o Shri Ramnath Meghwal was in employment between 26-2-2000 to 10-12-2000 and worked for more than 240 days in the Bank. If yes whther the action of terminating the service of the workman by the Manager, Central Bank of India, Civil Lines, Kota W.e.f. 10-12-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the employee is entitled to and from which date?" 2& mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k eas jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjka s dks mifLFkfr ckcr ukfsVl tkjh fd, x,A ukfsVl dh ikyuk es a izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mls vizkFkhZ us fn- 26-02-2000 ls prqFk Z Js.kh deZpkjh dk dk;Z djus gsr q nSfud osru ij lsok eas fu;kfstr fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ ls vk; Z lekt jksM+] jkeijq k] dksVk eas dk;Z fy;k x;kA fu;kts d us izkFkh Z dks vpkud] fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk,] fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk d s fn- 10-12-2000 ls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k gS tks voS/k gSA izkFkhZ fu;kts d d s ;gk a fn- 26-02-2000 ls 09-12-2000 rd fujarj 240 fnu l s vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dk ;g fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks-vk-s½ d s vUrxZr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk eas vkrk gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kts d us izkFkhZ dk s ukSdjh ls gVkr s le; ukfsVl] ukfsVl osru o NaVuh evq kotk ugh a nsdj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedks a dks fu;kts u eas j[kdj izkFkhZ dks gVkdj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th ds izko/kkuks a dh vogsyuk dh gS vkSj izkFkuZ k dh gS fd izkFkhZ dks fiNy s lEiw.k Z osru lfgr lsok eas cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA 3& vizkFkhZ us tokc LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse izLrqr dj izkFkhZ d s dFkuks a dk izfrokn fd;k gS fd izfri{kh izkFkhZ dk fu;kts d ugh a gSA izkFkhZ o izfri{kh d s e/; Jfed o fu;kts d dk laca/k ugh a gSA izkFkhZ dks mud s }kjk dHkh Hkh fu;kfstr ugh a fd;k x;k gS uk gh izkFkhZ us mud s ;gk a dHkh dksb Z dk; Z fd;k gSA izdj.k eas vf/kfu;e d s izko/kku Hkh ykxw ugh a gksrs gSA ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk ;g fookn 6 o"kZ dh nsjh ls mBk;k x;k gSA izfri{kh dks miyC/k tkudkjh d s vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks va'kdkyhu dk;Z ij o vkdfLed rkSj ij iw.krZ ;k vYidkyhu dk;Z ij fnu eas nk&s rhu ?k.Vs d s fy, vko';drk d s vuqlkj vLFkkbZ rkSj ij lSUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k dh vk; Z lekt jksM+ jkeiqjk] dksVk eas dos y ek= 152 fnu gh dk;Z djok;k x;k gS o izkFkhZ Lor% gh fn- 09-12-2000 ds i'pkr mDr vkdfLed va'kdkyhu dk;Z ij dk;jZ r ugh a gqvk gS vkSj izkFkuZ k dh gS fd mDr vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkuZ k i= lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkosA 4& lk{; izkFkhZ dh vkjs ls Lo;a ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls nsosUnz dqekj ik.Ms; d s 'kiFk i= izLrqr gq, gS ftu ij ijLij ftjg dh xbZ gSA mHk;i{k dh vkjs ls nLrkots h lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA 5& mHk;i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ tk s eq[;r% mudh vkjs ls izLrqr vius&vius vH;kons ukas d s vuq:i gh jgh gSA 6& gLrxr izdj.k eas e[q ;r% ;gh ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jfed us vizkFkhZ d s fu;kts u eas mld s }kjk of.kZr lsok i`Fkdrk fn- 10-12-2000 ls iwoZ d s ,d dy.s Mj o"k Z fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k x;k gS vFkok ugha\ bl laca/k eas izkFkhZ dh vkjs ls lk{; eas Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr gqvk gS ftles a mlus LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse eas of.kZr rF;kas dh iqujkof`Rr dh gS ,oa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlds ikl dksbZ fu;qfDr vkns'k o lsok i`Fkd vkn's k ugh a gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'k Z MCY;w 1 yxk;r 28 rd ij fdlh d s Hkh gLrk{kj ugha gSA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd bu lc ij cSad dh lhy ugh a gSA ;g lgh gS fd mlus izn'k Z MCY;w 29 fn- 18-08- 2006 dks Je le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dks fn;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd mlus fn- 10-12-2000 ls 18-08-2006 rd dgh a Hkh dksb Z fookn ugh a mBk;kA mldk uke fu;kts u dk;kyZ ; ls ugh a eaxok;k mldk lk{kkRdkj Hkh ugh a gqvkA og nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed FkkA mlus izfri{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk vk;Z lekt jksM ij dke fd;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd mlus 'kk[kk izca/kd] vk; Z lekt jksM dks i{kdkj ugh a cuk;k gS vkSj uk gh mld s fo:) fookn mBk;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd prqFk Z Js.kh deZpkfj;ka s dk gktjh jftLVj j[kk tkrk gS mlus gktjh jftLVj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij is'k ugh a fd;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'k Z MCY;w 1 yxk;r izn'kZ MCYC;w 28 eas etnwj dk gokyk gSA mls irk ugh a gS fd 'kk[kk izca/kd Lora= o i`Fkd bdkbZ gksrk gS vkSj og etnwjh djokus d s fy, Lora= gksrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd mlus ikl izfri{kh cSad dk dksb Z dkxt ugh a gSA vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls lk{; eas nsosUnz dqekj ik.Ms; dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mlus tokc LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse eas of.kZr rF;kas dh iqujkof`Rr dh vkjs ftjg eas ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd og izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr lkjk fjdkWMZ ns[kdj vk;k gSA ;g ckr xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dks mud s }kjk fn- 26-02-2000 dks prqFk Z Js.kh deZpkjh d s in ij fu;kfstr fd;k gksA vt[knq dgk fd fn- 26-02-2000 dks2106 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dke ij yxk;k Fkk ysfdu fu;kfstr ugh a fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkh Z us vk; Z lekt okyh cSad eas dke fd;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izkFkhZ us mud s ;gka fn- 26-02-2000 ls 09-12-2000 rd dke rks fd;k gS] yfsdu fujarj dke ugh a fd;k gSA ;g ckr xyr gS fd bldks fn- 10-12-2000 ls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k gksA vt[kqn dgk fd ukSdjh ij j[kk gh ugha rk s gVkr s dSlsA izkFkhZ us vkdfLed dk;Z fd;k Fkk blfy, bldks fu;qfDr i= fn, tkus dk iz'u gh ugh a gSA izkFkhZ us mlds ;gk a lQkbZ dk dke fd;k Fkk bld s vfrfjDr blls dksbZ dke ugh a djokrs FkAs pwfad izkFkhZ vkdfLed dk;Z ij Fkk blfy, bld s u vku s ij bldks lwpuk ugh a nh xbZA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku ckmpj d s }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA izn'k Z MCY;w 1 yxk;r MCY;w 27 mud s cSad d s ckmpj gS ftles a izkFkhZ dk uke ugh a gSA izn'k Z MCY;w 28 dh mls tkudkjh gS bldk tokc muds }kjk izn'k Z MCY;w 30 ds :i eas fn;k x;k FkkA izn'kZ MCY;w 31 dh Hkh mls tkudkjh gSA izn'k Z MCY;w 32 mudk tokc gSA izn'k Z MCY;w 33 vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'k Z ,e 1 mud s fjdkWMZ ds vuqlkj cuk;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd blesa tks ckmpj crk, x, gS] og ckmpj mUgksu s U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij is'k ugh a fd, gSA og izkFkhZ dks iqu% dke ij j[ku s d s fy, og vf/kd`Rr ugha gSA 7& lk{; d s mijkDs r foospu ls ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk mldh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukda 10-12-2000 ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ d s fu;kts u eas fnukda 26-02-2000 ls 09-12-2000 rd 240 fnu ls vf/kd le; rd prqFk Z Js.kh deZpkjh d s in ij dk;Z djus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS] ftlds laca/k eas tks izy[s kh; lk{; MCY;w 1 yxk;r 33 izLrqr dh x;h gS tjs ksDl izfr gSA bld s foijhr vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izkFkhZ d s mDr dFkuks a dk [k.Mu fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks mud s }kjk fu;kfstr ugh a fd;k x;k] uk gh izkFkhZ o mud s e/; deZdkj&fu;kstd d s laca/k LFkkfir ugh a gS izkFkhZ iw.krZ ;k vLFkkbZ rkSj ij lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k dh vk;Z lekt jksM+] jkeijq k 'kk[kk es a dos y ek= 152 gh dk;Z fd;k gS ,oa izkFkhZ Lor% gh fn- 09-12-2000 d s ckn mud s ;gk a dk;Zjr ugh a gSA izkFkhZ mud s ;gk a ,d dys.Mj o"k Z esa 240 fnu fujarj dk;Z ugha fd;k gS ,oa izkFkhZ }kjk 6 lky dh nsjh ls ;g izdj.k mBk;k x;k gS blfy, Hkh ;g izdj.k fujLruh; gSA bl idz j.k es a izkFkhZ }kjk tks nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dh gS muds izn'k Z MCY;w 1 yxk;r MCY;w 28 }kjk 161 fnuks a dh etnwjh dk Hkxq rku izkFkhZ dks fd;k x;k gSA izn'k Z MCY;w 29 le>kSrk vf/kdkjh le{k izLrqr izkFkuZ k i= fn- 18-08-2006] izn'k Z MCY;w 30 vizkFkhZ dk tokc izkFkuZ k i=] izn'k Z MCY;w 31 izkFkhZ dk izR;qRrj] izn'kZ MCY;w 32 vizkFkhZ dk i= fn- 11-01-2007 ,oa izn'k Z MCY;w 33 vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu gSA vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk izn'kZ ,e 1 nLrkos t is'k is'k fd;k x;k gS ftles a izkFkhZ }kjk 152 fnu muds ;gk a dk;Z djus dh fnukda ksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk tks nLrkots lk{; izn'k Z MCY;w 1 yxk;r MCY;w 28 is'k dh xbZ gS mueas fnukda 27-05-2000 ls 08-12-2000 rd izkFkhZ dks 161 fnukas dh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izLrqr izn'k Z ,e 1 izkFkhZ }kjk fn- 26-02-2000 ls 26-05-2005 rd 60 fnu rFkk fn- 27-05-2000 ls 08-12-2000 rd 92 fnu dk; Z djus dk mYys[k gS fdUrq vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izn'kZ ,e 1 ds leFkuZ eas nSfud etnwjh Hkxq rku dh iph;Z k@fLyi is'k ugh a dh gS blfy, izkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izLrqr inz 'kZ MCY;w 1 yxk;r 28 nSfud etnwjh dh ifpZ;ka vf/kd fo'oluh; irz hr gkrs h gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dks fn- 27-05- 2000 ls 8-12-2000 rd 161 fnukas dh etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls izLrqr lk{; ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ d s fu;kts u es a 221 fnu dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks okfaNr vuqrks"k izkIr djus d s fy, ;g izekf.kr djuk vko';d gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk crkbZ xbZ lsok lekfIr fn-10-12-2000 ls Bhd iwoZ d s ,d dys.Mj o"kZ eas mlds }kjk vizkFkhZ d s v/khu fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq izn'k Z MCY;w- 1 yxk;r MCY;w 28 o izn'k Z ,e 1 ls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ d s fu;kts u eas lsok i`Fkdrk ls iwoZ fujarj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gksA bld s vfrfjDr izkFkhZ Jfed dh vkjs ls fdlh izdkj dk dksb Z izy[s kh; lk{; gkftjh jftLVj] eLVjksy ;k vU; lsok laca/kh dkbs Z nLrkost bR;kfn Hkh izLrqr ugh a fd;s x;s gS ftll s mld s dFkuks a dh iqf"V gksrh gksA izkFkhZ }kjk ftjg d s nkSjku Li"V dFku fd;k x;k gS fd prqFk Z Js.kh deZpkjh;kas dk gktjh jftLVj j[kk tkrk gS] mlus gktjh jftLVj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij is'k ugha fd;k gSA bld s vykok vizkFkhZ us vius tokc eas ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us lSaVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] vk; Z lekt jksM+] jkeijq k] dksVk eas ek= 152 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS mld s ckn izkFkhZ Lo;a dk;Z NkMs +dj pyk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ Jfed ij 240 fnu yxkrkj dke djus d s rF; dks lkfcr djus dk tks Hkkj gS] mlesa izkFkhZ i{k }kjk dsoy ek= vius 'kiFk&i= eas ;g fy[k nsuk fd izkFkhZ Jfed us 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dke fd;k] i;kIZr ugh a gksxk] vfirq mUgsas fdlh Bkls ekSf[kd ,oa izy[s kh;@nLrkosth lk{; ls bl rF; dks lkfcr djuk gksxk ftll s fd ;g rF; lEiq"V gks ld]s ijUrq gLrxr izdj.k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls izkFkhZ Jfed ;g rF; lkfcr djus eas iw.krZ ;k vlQy jgk gS fd mld s }kjk crkb Z xbZ lsok lekfIr dh fnukda ls Bhd iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"k Z dh vof/k eas mlus vizkFkhZ d s fu;kstu eas fujUrj 240 ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA ekuuh; lokZPs p U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkra ks a eas bl lca a/k eas le;≤ ij ;gh fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS& Ranip Nagar Palika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore-IX(2007) SLT 805 SC esa ekuuh; lokZPsp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k g S fd LABOUR LAW- 240 days completion of service- Burden of proof lies on workman to show he worked continuously for 240 days for preceding one year - It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove factum of being in employment of employer. State of Gujrat vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713. eas ekuuh; lokZPs p U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus of the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appeallant. It was them for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filling of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No Proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. on this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. v(2004) LST 686=2004(8)SCC161, ¼iSjk 6½ eas ekuuh; lokZPs p U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2107 evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year. These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (3) SCC 25. No Proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere Non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court to hold that the workman had worked for 240 days as claimed." Manager Reserve Bank of India Bangalore Vs S. Mani and Others 2005 (5) SCC page 100 es a ekuuh; loksPZp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd The Initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer was held to be erroneous. R.M. Yellatti Vs The Asst. Executive Engineer (2006 (1) SCC 1006) 2005 AIR SCW 6103 es a ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "Analysing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act. in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgements we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. 8& bl izdkj mijkDs r foospu o fo'y"sk.k d s vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ Jfed viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) dj ikus eas vlQy jgk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ d s ;gk a mld s }kjk crkbZ xbZ lsok lekfIr fnukda 10-12-2000 ls Bhd iwoZ d s ,d dys.Mj o"k]Z vFkkZr 12 dys.Mj ekg es a fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ dh vkjs ls vizkFkhZ }kjk mls gVk; s tkus ds le; fu;kts d d s v/khu izkFkhZ ls dfu"B vU; deZpkjh dks fu;kstu eas j[ku s d s laca/k eas fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ izy[s kh; lk{; dks viuh lk{; eas izLrqr dj iznf'krZ ugha djk;k x;k gSA blfy, izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ls dksbZ jkgr ikzIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugh a gSA 9& bl izdj.k eas U;k;ky; dks ;g Hkh ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk nsjh ls fookn mBk;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ fo}ku vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius tokc esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd bl izdj.k eas izkFkhZ }kjk djhc 6 o"kZ d s i'pkr dk;Zokgh dh gS vkSj bl nkSjku izkFkhZ }kjk dksb Z f'kdk;r izLrqr ugha dh xbZA ,slh fLFkfr eas izdj.k vof/k ckf/kr gksus ls jsQjsla ;kXs; ugh a jgk gSA izkFkhZ d s izfrfuf/k us mDr rdksa Z dk [k.Mu fd;k gSA bl laca/k eas izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk izLrqr vius LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse o vius 'kiFk i= es a mDr nsjh d s laca/k eas dkbs Z rF; mYysf[kr ugh a fd; s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls nsjh d s laca/k eas fd, x, mDr dFkuka s d s lEca/k eas dksbZ fo'oluh; lk{; is'k ugh a dh xbZ gSA i=koyh d s voyksdu ls izdV gS fd izkFkhZ us viuh ftjg ds nkSjku ;g Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd mlus fn- 10-12-2000 ls 18-08-2006 rd dgh a Hkh dksb Z fookn ugha mBk;kA izkFkhZ }kjk of.kZr lsok i`Fkdrk fnukda 10-12-2000 ls yxHkx 5 o"kZ 8 ekg dh nsjh ls vFkkZr~ o"k Z 2006 eas izdj.k izLrqr fd;k tkuk izdV gSA izkFkhZ }kjk nsjh d s laca/k es a dksbZ dkj.k ugh a crk;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk viuk fookn lsokeqfDr d s mijkUr fuf'pr :i ls yxHkx 5 o"k Z 8 ekg dh vlkef;d nsjh d s i'pkr mBk;k x;k gS ftl nsjh dk larks"ktud dkj.k@Li"Vhdj.k mlds }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gSA 9& ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; d s U;k;n`"Vkra ^^usnuxM~Mh cSad fy- cuke ds-ih-ek/koudqV~Vh ,oa vU;&2000 ycs vkbZlh 703 ycs vkbZlh ¼,llh½] 2009¼122½ ,Q,yvkj 737¼,llh½&dukZVdk jkT; ,oa vU; cuke jfodeq kj^^ es a izfrikfnr U;k;fl)karkuqlkj nsjh ls fookn mBk;k tkuk] ekeys ds fy, ?kkrd (Fatal) ekuk x;k gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;k;n`"Vkra ^^,vkbZvkj 2016 ,llh 2984&izHkkdj cuke TokbZUV MkW;jsDVj] lSjhdYpj fMikVeZ sUV ,oa vU;^^ es a izfrikfnr fof/kd fl)karkuqlkj lkj :i eas ;gh vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS fd leqfpr ljdkj dks ;g {ks=kf/kdkj ;k 'kfDr iznRr ugh a gS fd og fcuk fof/klaxr@;fqDr;qDr Li"Vhdj.k d s lsok i`Fkdrk d s ckn nsjh ls mBk;s x;s vfLrRoghu@vfo|eku fookn dk funs'Z k@jsQszUl cuk;sA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fofu'p; ^^vkj,yvkj 2002¼1½ i`"B 353&fMfotu QkWjsLV vkWfQlj cuke j?koq hj ,oa vU;^^ es a fcuk fdlh i;kZIr dkj.k o Li"Vhdj.k d s nsjh ls izLrqr fd; s x;s fookn dks s mi;qDr ugh a ekuk x;k vkSj Je U;k;ky; d s ikfjr vokMZ dks vikLr fd;k x;kA fu"d"kZr% U;k;ky; dh lexz jk; eas izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk fcuk fof/klaxr@;qfDr;qDr Li"Vhdj.k d s lsokeqfDr frfFk ls 5 o"k Z ls vf/kd dh vlkef;d@nh?kkZof/k dh nsjh ls mBk;k x;k funs'Z k@jsQzsUl@fookn] vfLrRoghu@vfo|eku ?kksf"kr fd, tkus ;kXs; ik;k tkrk gSA 10& fu"d"kZr% mijkDs r foospu o fo'y"sk.k d s ifjizs{; eas tcfd izkFkhZ viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) dj iku s eas vlQy jgk gS fd mld s }kjk of.kZr lsok lekfIr fnukda 10-12-2000 ls Bhd iwoZ d s ,d dys.Mj o"k Z eas mlus vizkFkhZ d s fu;kstu eas yxkrkj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS] lkFk gh mld s }kjk of.kZr lsokiF` kdrk fnukda ls yxHkx 5 o"k Z ls vf/kd dh vlkef;d@nh?kkZof/k dh nsjh ls mBk; s tkus dk dksb Z larks"ktud dkj.k@Li"Vhdj.k ugha cryk;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr eas mDr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl@fookn] vfLrRoghu@vfo|eku gks tkrk gS vkSj izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls fdlh izdkj dk dksb Z vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ugh a ik;k tkrk gS ,oa izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkra Gopal Lal Parashar vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara & Anr.- 2017(2) CDR 914 (Raj.) ,oa Santosh Gupta Vs. State Bank of India- II L.L.J. 1980 Supreme Court, ds izdj.kka s dh rF; o ifjfLFkfr;k a fHkUu gkus s ls izkFkhZ muds izfrikfnr fl)karks a ls dksb Z ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugh a gS rFkk lEizsf"kr funs'Z k@jsQzsUl blh vuq:i mRrfjr gkus s ;kXs; gSA ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je e=a ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkfaxd vkn's k fnukad 03-09-2007 d s tfj;s lEizsf"kr funs'Z k@fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ lR;ukjk;.k ;g fl) dj iku s eas vlQy jgk gS fd mlus vizkFkh Z {k=s h; izca/kd] lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] flfoy ykbZUl] dkVs k d s fu;kts u eas lsok i`Fkdrk fnukda 10-12-2000 ls iwoZ d s ,d dys.Mj o"k Z eas 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS ,oa mld s }kjk fcuk fof/klxa r@;qfDr;qDr Li"Vhdj.k d s lsok i`Fkdrk fnukda d s i'pkr yxHkx 5 o"kZ ls vf/kd dh vlkef;d@nh?kkZof/k dh nsjh ls mBk;k x;k funs'Z k@jsQszUl@fookn] vfLrRoghu@vfo|eku gks tkus ls izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk vuqrk"sk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugh a gSA lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k vkS|kfsxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½]dksVk¼jkt-½ vf/kfu.k;Z vkt fnukda 17-01-2025 dks [kyq s U;k;kf/kdj.k eas lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekulq kj lefqpr ljdkj dks izdk'kukFk Z fHktok;k tkoAs2108 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नइ ददल्ली, 15 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 823.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@JeU;k;ky; ds iapkV ¼dUsnzh;½&08@2006¼lhvkbZ,l&47@2014½¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001520008½ izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 41011/25/2007- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 15th May, 2025 S.O. 823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2006(CIS-47/2014) (CNR- RJKT 060001520008) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway and their workmen. [No. L-41011/25/2007- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|kfsxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dUsnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½ ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kek]Z vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½ funs'Z k izdj.k dez kad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&08@2006¼lhvkbZ,l&47@2014½ ¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdVs h060001520008½ fnukda LFkkfir% 02-04-2008 izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je e=a ky;] ubZ fnYyh d s vkn's k dz- ,y&41011@25@2007¼vkbvZ kj¼ch&k½½ fn-%03-12-2007 funs'Z k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 e/; dk;Zdkjh v/;{k] ifj'pe e/; jsyo s deZpkjh ifj"kn] jkeeafnj ifjlj] dksVk &&ikzFkhZ ;wfu;u ,o a e.My jsy izca/kd] if'pe e/; jsyos] dksVk ta- dksVk &&vikzFkhZ fu;kts d mifLFkr izkFkhZ Jfed dh vkjs ls izfrfuf/k%& Jh fj;kt vgen vizkFkhZ fu;kts d dh vkjs ls izfrfuf/k%& Jh eukst iqjh %%vf/kfu.k;Z %% fn-%21-01-2025 Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh d s izklkafxd vkns'k fnukda 03-12-2007 ds tfj;s funs'Z k fookn] vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftl s vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkoxs k½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ dss vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.k;Z kFk Z izkIr gqvk gS%& "Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Kota Mandal, Kota in giving Shri Mehboob Ali & 23 others temporary status after completing 360 days of service, is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?"[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2109 2& mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k eas jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjka s dks mifLFkfr ckcr ukfsVl tkjh fd, x,A ukfsVl dh ikyuk es a izkFkhZ ;wfu;u }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k d s le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd Jfedx.k dh fu;qfDr e.My jsy izca/kd] dkVs k ds v/khu HkrhZ i= la- 615@1@1207 fn- 24-12-84 ,oa e.My baftfu;j ¼Vªsd½ dksVk ds ukfsVl la- 615¼1½ fn- 16-06-84 d s vk/kkj ij gqb Z Fkh ftudh fnukda o vLFkkbZ ntkZ iznku djus dh fnukda fuEukuqlkj gS& dz-la- uke deZdkj HkrhZ fnukda Vh-,l- fn, tku s dh fnukda 1 egcwc vyh d s 22-07-85 29-08-86 2 jkepj.k ch 22-07-85 04-09-86 3 'kgtkn [kk a 22-07-85 14-09-86 4 lhrkjke ds 26-07-85 10-11-86 5 txnh'k flag ch 29-07-85 02-11-86 6 egsUnzjke vkj 01-04-85 04-11-86 7 cUus flag vkj 29-07-85 10-12-86 8 izeksn deq kj ch 22-07-85 14-03-87 8 xkis kyyky lh 01-03-85 10-05-87 9 eksgEen jQhd ,e 22-07-85 15-09-86 11 /kus'k deq kj ,y 22-07--85 10-09-86 12 eksgu flag ch 22-07-95 12-09-86 13 /kwiflag 29-07-85 21-11-87 14 yky eksgEen 22-07-85 20-09-86 15 jkeilz kn lh 22-07-85 07-04-87 16 ?ku';ke vkj 26-03-85 02-08-86 17 eksgj flag vkj 26-03-85 21-09-86 18 cPpw flag ,l 26-03-85 02-08-86 19 eksgu flag vkj 26-03-85 02-08-86 20 izse flag 22-07-85 17-07-86 21 eksguyky ds 22-07-85 24-09-86 22 lqjxu vkj 29-07-85 24-09-86 23 cnfj;k 22-07-85 14-03-87 24 xkis kyjke ch 22-07-85 14-03-87 fu;kts d }kjk Jfedka s dk s vLFkkbZ ntkZ HkrhZ d s fnukda ls 120 fnu dh vof/k eas dke djus d s i'pkr ugh a fn;k tkdj 360 fnu d s dk;Z fnol dh vof/k d s i'pkr ;k blls Hkh vf/kd fnukas d s dk; Z d s i'pkr fn;k x;k gS] tks foHkkxh; fu;eks a d s foifjr gS bld dkj.k ;g fookn mRiUu gqvk gSA fookn ls lacaf/kr Jfedka s dk s fu;qfDr O;fDrxr lk{kkRdkj ds fy, fHkUu&fHkUu fnukas eas e.My baftfu;j ¼Vªsd½ dksVk ds ukfsVl la- bZ@bZ@615 fn- 18-06-84 ,oa led{k i= fn- 16-06-84 d s }kjk lgk;d baftfu;j xquk d s i= la- bZ@bZ@615@1¼120½ fn- 24-12-84 o lgk;d baftfu;j lokbeZ k/kksijq d s i= dez kad ,s@13¼v-e-Ldhz-½ }kjk cqyk;k x;k Fkk rFkk deZdkjka s dk lk{kkRdkj vkis u ykbZu d s e.My vf/kdkfj;ka s }kjk fy;k tdj fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZ FkhA foHkkx es a dk;Z Jfedka s esa ls dbZ Jfedka s dk Ldhzfuax 1988 eas fd;k x;k dbZ Jfedkas dks vkn's k ls bZ@Vsy@8210@4@601@kk fn- 27-06-89 ds }kjk fu;fer dj fn;k x;k rFkk db Z Jfedkas dks NkMs + fn;k x;kA bl izdkj fu;kts d }kjk xyr rjhdka s ls Jfedks a dks HksnHkko iw.kZ rjhds ls ykHk fn;k x;k gS tks xyr gSA fookn ls lacaf/kr Jfedks a dk fu;ferhdj.k fu;fer deZdkjksa dh rjg gh gqvk Fkk budk lyDs 'ku fu/kkZfjr fu;ekas d s vuqlkj lk{kkRdkj d s vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k Fkk] bl dkj.k budh fu;qfDr@fu;ferhdj.k uke ds vkxs n'kkbZ xbZ frFkh ls gh fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk tks lqfo/kk,a fu;kts d }kjk iznku ugh a dh xbZ rFkk fookn ls2110 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] lacaf/kr deZdkj ofj"B gsrs gq, Hkh dfu"Bre Js.kh eas jg x,A bl izdkj fu;kts d }kjk dh xbZ dk;oZ kgh ls Jfedka s dks dkQh vkfFkZd uqdlku gqvk gSA fu;sktd }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh uSlfxZd U;k; d s fl)krka s ds foifjr gS tks vUQ;s j ycs j izsfDVl dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gSA fu;kts d }kjk lacaf/kr Jfedka s dh fu;qfDr fuekZ.k foHkkx o izkts Ds V d s v/khu gksus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS tks loZFkk xyr gS D;ksfad bu deZdkjksa dks Ldhzu djd s e.My dk;kZy; }kjk i= fn- 08-08-91 }kjk fu;fer fd;k x;k gS rFkk led{k i= fn- 17-04-89] 19&20-06-89] 27-09-89] 24-07-89 o 07-09-89 d s }kjk VsyhdkWe foHkkx eas fu;fer ikfsLVax djd s LFkkukUrj.k fd;k x;k gS rFkk HkrhZ Hkh vkis u ykbZu eas fd;k x;k Fkk bl dkj.k lacaf/kr deZdkj vU; deZpkfj;ka s o fu;eka s d s vk/kkj ij 120 fnu dh lsok d s ckn ls gh vLFkkbZ ntkZ izkIr djus d s gdnkj gS rFkk blh izdkj lHkh ykHk izkIr djus d s gdnkj gS vkSj izkFkuZ k dh gS fd Jfedka s dks mudh 120 fnu dh lsok vof/k iw.k Z djus d s mijkar vLFkkbZ ntkZ fn;k tkdj vU; depZ kfj;ka s d s leku lHkh LFkkbZ ykHk fnyok, tkoAs 3& vizkFkhZ fu;kts d dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd jsyos foHkkx ds fu;keka s ds vuqlkj Jfedkas dks VsEijsjh LVsVl fn;k tkrk gS ,sl s lHkh Jfed ftudk s le;≤ ij Vh-,l fn;k tk jgk gS mu Jfedka s us viuh fu;qfDr d s laca/k eas ,oa dk;Z fooj.k ds laca/k eas fof'k"V ,oa lkjoku nLrkots is'k ugh a fd, gS ftuds vHkko eas tokc nsuk laHko ugha gS ,slh voLFkk eas vafdr rF; Lohdkj ugha gSA Jfedka s dk fu;ferhdj.k fu;ekulq kj fd;k x;k gSA fu;ferhdj.k dh izfd;z k d s vUrxZr Jfedka s dks ik=rk d s vk/kkj ij fu;fer fd;k tkrk gSA ofj"Brk ds mYya?ku ds laca/k eas fdlh Hkh fof'k"B Jfed dk uke fn;k gS vkSj uk gh Lo;a }kjk fu;ferdj.k dh ik=rk d s fy, Jfedka s us fu;ferhdj.k dh ik=rk lac/ak eas dksbZ lkjoku nLrkost o rF; gh is'k fd, gSA Jfedka s d s fu;ferhdj.k d s laca/k eas jsyo s iz'kklu }kjk dh xbZ leLr dk;Zokgh jsyo s ckMs Z fu;ekas d s vuqlkj dh xbZ gSA fn- 14-07-81 d s ckn egkicz a/kd dh Lohd`fr d s fcuk vkdfLed Jfedka s dh fu;qfDr i= jsyo s ckMs Z d s fu;eka s ds vk/kkj ij jksd yxk nh xbZ Fkh blfy, fn- 18-06-84 ,oa 24-12-84 dk budh fu;qfDr fd;k tkuk jsdkWMZ d s vHkko eas Lohdkj ugh a gSA ;g ekeyk Jfedka s dh lsok eas fu;ferhdj.k dk gS ftlds fy, Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir lsUVªy ,MfeusLVªho VªhC;wuy d s le{k vkons u izLrqr djuk pkfg, vkSj izkFkuZ k dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkoAs 4& lk{; eas izkFkhZ i{k dh vkjs ls /ku';ke] eksguyky o vizkFkhZ dh vkjs ls ;kxs s'k eos kM+k d s 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftul s ijLij ftjg dh x;hA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls nLrkots h lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA 5& lwuk x;k] i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;|fi vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vkjs ls {k=s kf/kdkj d s fcUnw ds ij dksb Z vkifRr ugh a dh xbZ gS fdUrq U;k;kf/kdj.k dks izdj.k eas loZizFke Lor% ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k ;g izdj.k U;k;kf/kdj.k d s {k=s kf/kdj eas vkrk gS ;k ughaA mDr LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse izkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr dj Jfedks a dh HkrhZ fnukda ,oa vLFkkbZ ntkZ fn, tku s dh fnukda vafdr dh xbZ gS tcfd izkIr jsQszUl vkn's k fuEukuqlkj gS%&"Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Kota Mandal, Kota in giving Shri Mehboob Ali & 23 others temporary status after completing 360 days of service, is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?" bl izdkj Li"V gS fd jsQjsla @fookn vf/klwpuk eas izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds Jfedka s dh HkrhZ ,oa vLFkkbZ ntkZ nsu s dh fnukda vafdr ugha gS tcfd LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse o 'kiFk i=ks a eas Jfedka s dh HkrhZ fnukda o vLFkkbZ ntkZ nsus dh frfFk;ka vafdr dh gS rFkk Jfedkas }kjk mudh HkrhZ fnukad ls 120 fnu iw.kZ gksus ij vLFkkbZ ntsZ dh ekxa dh xbZ gS ,oa bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks tks jsQjsla izkIr gqvk gS og 360 fnu d s ckn vLFkkbZ ntkZ nsu s dh mfprrk ,oa oS|rk ckcr izkIr gqvk gSA ,sl s es a ;g fLFkfr Li"V ugh a gS fd ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k Jfedka s dh HkrhZ ds mijkra mud s vizkFkhZ ds fu;kts u eas 120 fnu dh lsok iwjh gksus ij Jfedks a dh vLFkkbZ ntkZ iku s dh dkSulh fnukda dks ekudkj jsQjsal dk fuLrkj.k djsxkA D;k ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k izkFkhZ i{k }kjk crk;h xbZ frfFk d s vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k dj ldrk gS vFkok ugha\ bl ckcr ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ^^egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUn fd'kksj&2003 McY;w,ylh¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`"B 424^^ d s isjk uEcj 12 eas ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk fuEu vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS%&"Thus, in view of the above, I reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court has no competence to correct/modify/amend/alter the terms of the reference or mention the date of termination etc., or proceed with the reference and accepting the date of termination as suggested by the workman and in case it does so the award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction, based on the bad reference." 6& blh fu.k;Z d s isjk la[;k 11 es a ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ^^enuiky flag cuke mRrjizns'k jkT; ,oa vU;&,vkbvZ kj 2000 lqizhe dksV Z i`"B 537^^ dk mYys[k Hkh fd;k x;k gS ftleas ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ;g er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd Je U;k;ky; dk {k=s kf/kdkj jsQszUl esa vafdr fcUnq rd gh lhfer gksrk gS vkSj mls jsQzsUl ls ijs tkdj i{kdkjkas ds ukekas ;k frfFk;ks a eas fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksb Z ifjorZu ;k la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugh a gSA ukeka s o frfFk;ks a es a dksbZ ifjorZu ;k la'kks/ku djokuk gS rk s i{kdkjka s dks leqfpr ljdkj d s le{k viuk i{k j[kdj bl ckcr dk;oZ kgh djokuh gksxhA 7& vr% mDr fu.kZ;kas d s izdk'k eas ;g Li"V gS fd jsQzsUl@vf/klwpuk eas izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh Jfedka s dh vLFkkbZ ntkZ izkIr djus ,oa HkrhZ dh frfFk;ka ugh a vafdr gS rFkk Jfedks a }kjk vius LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse o 'kiFk i= ea s HkrhZ o vLFkkbZ ntkZ nsus dh frfFk;ks a dk vadu fd;k x;k gS ,oa HkrhZ dh frfFk ls 120 fnu lsok eas iw.kZ gksus ij vLFkkbZ ntsZ dh ekax dh xbZ gS fdUrq jsQjsla vkn's k es a fdlh frfFk dk vadu ugh a gksus ls U;k;kf/kdj.k LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse o 'kiFk i= es a vafdr frfFk;ks a d s fHkUu gksus ls U;k;kf/kdj.k Dyse eas vafdr frfFk;ks a d s vk/kkj ekudj fu.k;Z ikfjr ugh a dj ldrk gS D;ksfad ,slk fu.k;Z {k=s kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksxk vkSj 'kUw; gksxkA ysfdu ;g U;k;kf/kdj.k tc rd fd jsQjsla es a la'kks/ku u gks tk, rc rd vfxze dk;Zokgh ugh a dj ldrkA fygktk bl n`f"V ls pwWfd gLrxr jsQszUl vkns'k eas fdlh frfFk dk vadu ugha gS rFkk U;k;kf/kdj.k LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse esa vafdr frfFk;ka d s vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k ugha dj ldrk gS ,sls eas fQygky ;g izdj.k bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds {k=s kf/kdkj dk gksuk ugh a ik;k tkrk gS] ijUrq i{kdkj ;fn lefqpr ljdkj ls bl ckcr jsQszUl vkn's k eas la'kks/ku djokdj U;k;kf/kdj.k eas is'k djrs gSa rk s U;k;kf/kdj.k ,sl s jsQszUl vkn's k ij fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj ldrk gSA ifj.kker% Je e=a ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk viuh izklkafxd vf/klwpuk fn- 03-12-2007 d s tfj;s lEizsf"kr funs'Z k@fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd of.kZr jsQszUl vkn's k eas fdlh fnukda dk vadu ugh a gksus ls rFkk LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyse eas vafdr frfFk;ks a dks U;k;kf/kdj.k vk/kkj ekudj fu.k;Z ikfjr ugh a dj ldrk gS D;ksfad bl jsQszUl vkn's k eas vf/kfu.k;Z ikfjr fd;k tkuk 'kUw; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj d s[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2111 vHkko dk gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn leqfpr ljdkj ls izkFkhZ Jfedkas dh HkrhZ fnukda ,oa vLFkkbZ ntkZ ekaxus dh fnukad ckcr jsQszUl vkn's k es a la'kks/ku djokdj i's k djs a rk s izdj.k eas fof/k vuqlkj fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldxs hA lanhi dqekj 'kek]Z U;k;k/kh'k vkS|kfsxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dUsnzh;½]dksVk¼jkt-½ vf/kfu.k;Z vkt fnukda 21-01-2025 dks [kyq s U;k;kf/kdj.k eas lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekulq kj lefqpr ljdkj dks izdk'kukFk Z fHktok;k tkoAs नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 824.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a56/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 41011/61/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 56/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of North Central Railway and their workmen. [No. L-41011/61/2022- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/R/56/2022 Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.( Retd.) The General Secretary, Rastriya Chathurth Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress, 29 A, Kabeer Nagar, Dayalbagh, Agra U.P. - 282005 Workman Versus The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi - 284128 Management AWARD (Passed on this 28th day of April-2025.) As per letter dated 14/12/2022 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-41011/61/2022 (IR(B-I)) dt. 14/12/2022. The dispute under reference related to :-2112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] “ क्या कमकय ार/ अवदे क श्री गफ्फार खा ूँ ृत्रु श्री बाब ू खा,ूँ को ईत्तर मध्य रेल्व,े झासूँ ी द्वारा एक िी कजथत दरु ाचरण के जलए जवजध के जवृरीत एक स े ऄजधक दण्ड अदिे ददया जाना न्यायोजचत ि?ै यदद निीं तो कमकय ार / अवदे क दकस ऄनतु ोि को ृान ेका िकदार ि ै? " After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal. The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly. AWARD In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules. P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer DATE: 28/04/2025 नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 825.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a29/2021-22) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 41011/29/2022- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.29/2021-22) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway their workmen. [No. L-41011/29/2022- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/29/2021-22 Date: 13.05.2025. Party No.1: 1. The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Kingsway, Station Road, Nagpur – 440011. 2. M/s Anand L Temburne, Railway Contractor, 283, Sidharth Nagar, Teka Naka, Nagpur – 440017.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2113 V/s. Party No.2: The District President, Shiv Sena Bhartiya Kamgar Sangthana, HO – Plot No. 405, Ganesh Nagar, Sangam Adlabs Road, Nagpur – 440026. AWARD (Dated: 13th May, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of M/s Anand L Tembhurne, Railway Contractor, and their workman Shri. Rohit Zakrel, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/29/2022 (IR(B-I)) dated 03.03.2022, with the following schedule:- ―Whether the demand of the Shiv Sena Bhartiya Kamgar Sangathana to reinstate the services of Shri Rohit Zakrel, Safai Karamchari, terminated by the management of M/s Anand L Tembhurne, Railway Contractor, working under the principal employer Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railways, Nagpur is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖ 2. Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1/ Central Railway, Shri R.W. Pachbudhe is present before the Court but despite service of notices, petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 are not present before the Court. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to establish his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since very beginning of the case. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered. ORDER The demand of the Shiv Sena Bhartiya Kamgar Sangathana to reinstate the services of Shri Rohit Zakrel, Safai Karamchari, terminated by the management of M/s Anand L Tembhurne, Railway Contractor, working under the principal employer Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railways, Nagpur is illegal and unjustified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 826.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चडं ीगढ़- I ds iapkV (01/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-62] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen. [No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-62] SALONI, Dy. Director2114 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam. ID No.01/2021 Registered On:-09.04.2021 Abhishek S/o Sh. Pappu R/o H.No.6613, Sector 56, Palsaura, Chandigarh-160055. ...........Workman Versus The Assistant General Manager, Circle Office, Canara Bank, Plot No.1, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. ........Respondent Award Passed On:-05.05.2025 1. The workman Sh. Abhishek has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by Workman but workman is not responding from several dates which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits. 3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long i.e. from 29.01.2024 till 05.05.2025 and nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of the case. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947. B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 827.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चडं ीगढ़- I ds iapkV (16/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/45/2016- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 16/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/45/2016- IR(B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, H.J.S. ID No.16/2016 Registered on 22.08.2016 Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Satyabir, Peon, R/o VPO Kharak Kalan, Tehsil & Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana. ………………Claimant/Workman[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2115 Versus 1. The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, 1st Floor, Asa Ram Market, Model Town Karnal, Haryana. 2. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak (Haryana). ……………..Opposite party/Management Sh. S.C. Gupta learned AR for Workman Sh. Jai Pal Singh learned AR for Management Judgment reserved on 28th April, 2025 Judgment Pronounced on 05th May, 2025 JUDGMENT/ AWARD 1. Instant Industrial Dispute has been registered for adjudication on the basis of a Reference vide Notification No. L-12012/45/2016-IR(B-II) dated 27.07.2016 under clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act), of the Ministry of Labour- Government of India which is as follows:- ―Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Rohtak in terminating the service of the workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Satyabir w.e.f. 02.02.2015 is legal and justified? If, not then what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?‖ 2. The case of Workman/ Petitioner-. According to case of the workman he was engaged on daily wages basis on 16.04.2012 in the main Branch UBI Jhajjar by the Respondent-management and used to do manual work of Class IV employees. The workman used to work from opening of the office to the closing hours of the bank and was used to be paid through Multi city of cheque on monthly basis by the bank and as a casual daily wage basis at the end of the month. According to claimant the original record of payment is with the management bank however Photostat copies of payment through cheques duly signed by the workman on the back side of the cheque for the period from December 2013 paid in January 2014 to 2nd February, 2015 has been filed alongwith the claim petition. The work and conduct of workman was satisfactory as there was on complaint against him. It is alleged that on 02.02.2015 the Branch Manager orally terminated services of the workman and directed him not to come on duty against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. According to case of workman he continuously worked with the bank from the date of his engagement i.e. 16.04.2012 till 02.0.2015 when he was stopped to perform his duty and this way the workman has already completed more than 240 days of service immediately preceding the date of his illegal arbitrary termination of services. It is further said that the management has violated the mandatory provision of 25 F and 25 N as no retrenchment compensation was given to the workman. It is also said that the workman was not served one month notice or pay in lieu of notice at the time of illegal and arbitrary termination. According to claim of workman he is not employed anywhere since the date of his termination and it has been prayed that the workman may kindly be reinstated with full back wages and service benefits. 3. The case of Management- In response to the notices issued the management appeared and contested the claim of workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar by filing its reply/ written statement against the claim petition. Preliminary objections have been raised by the management by stating that filing claim petition under Industrial Dispute Act is an abuse of process of law as the workman had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has created a false and concocted story in order to seek relief. The contents and statements made in the claim petition are denied by the management in its written reply. It has been specifically stated by the management that at no point of time workman Dinesh Kumar was appointed with the bank and only because the Branch Manager had taken services of workman on casual basis it does not entitle him to claim employment in the bank. It is further stated by respondent management that the workman was engaged by and was working for the Branch Manager (the Respondent No.2) in his personal capacity and he was paid out of petty cash on day to day basis and such type of work cannot be termed that workman was recruited by Bank through the selection procedure prescribed by the bank, the services of the workman was never used regularly and his name was not entered in muster roll of the Branch which is meant for the regular employees of the bank. The workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is denied that the workman was appointed as regular/ ad-hoc/ contractual basis. It is further said that the workman was engaged by respondent No.2 not by the bank and as such the bank has no supervision on the workman. Branch Manager is not a competent authority nor authorized to make any recruitment in any cadre of the bank. According to further case of management the claimant is claiming a back door entry disregarding rules and regulations which is not permissible and violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. According to case of management since there has been no appointment at any point of time and therefore there was no question of any termination at all. The engagement of claimant was infact on a purely personal capacity for performing the work of a Branch Manager and the Branch Manager has been compensating the claimant through expenditure account of the Branch using his discretionary power and therefore the claim cannot be termed as Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Industrial Dispute. It has also been denied that the workman has worked for continuous period of 240 days. Therefore, according to the reply of management the claim and prayer made in the claim statement by workman is liable to be dismissed with cost.2116 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. Issue:- The issue to be determined in the present case is in terms of reference as is received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour as follows: “Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India, Rohtak in terminating the service of the workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Satyabir w.e.f. 02.02.2015 is legal and justified? If, not then what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date.” 5. During hearing of the case the workman Dinesh Kumar himself has got examined as Witness No.1 and during his evidence certain documents were brought on record and were marked as Exhibits as follows:. Sr. No. Particulars Annexure/ Exhibit 1. Copies of cheques making payment (14 Pages) Ex. W-1 2. Copies of Payment Vouchers and Cheques (24 Pages) Ex. W-2 6. On behalf of Respondent- Management one witness namely Jai Sangwan got examined as Management Witness No.1 and during his evidence certain documents were brought on record and were marked as Exhibits as follows: Sr. No. Particulars Annexure/ Exhibit 1. Copy of Power of Attorney Ex. R-1 7. Arguments of Parties: Heard Ld. AR (Counsel) for the workman and perused written submission filed on behalf of for Management. According to Ld. Counsel for the workman, the workman was engaged as Class-IV Employee since 16.04.2012 and without any rhyme and reason his services have been terminated by the opposite party w.e.f. 02.02.2015 in support of the case of workman according to Ld. Counsel there are documentary evidence which are photocopies of cheques through which payment of workman has been made and vouchers have also been used for paying the wages of the workman and these documents has been brought on the record. According to Ld. Counsel in the cheques and vouchers the workman has been referred as casual worker and various cheques of different dates also show that the payment through cheque has been made against the due salary and therefore, the workman case is clearly proved that without any compensatory payment or without any notice to workman before terminating his services he has been wrongly terminated from the service. The Ld. Counsel has prayed that the reference sent by Government of India, Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya may be accepted and be decided in favour of workman declaring that termination of service of workman Dinesh Kumar is illegal, unjustified and in violation of provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act. It is also urged that workman may be reinstated in the service with full back wages and all service benefits. Ld. Counsel for workman has placed his reliance on the Judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No.258/2012 titled as State Bank of India Versus Pooja and a decision of CGIT-cum-LC-II, Chandigarh in a similar matter ID No.03/2017 titled as Jaspal Singh Versus Dena Bank. 8. It may be pointed out that on the date fixed for argument none had turned up to argue the case on behalf of for Management but soon after closing the proceeding of that particular date (28.04.2025) the ld. Counsel for Management Sh. Jaipal Singh had appeared before the Court and filed several Judgments and submitted that what is mentioned in his written submissions may be treated as oral arguments on behalf of management. As per the written submission of management the case filed by workman is an abuse of process of law and workman could not prove that he was infact employer and appointed by the bank. According to written submission the workman has admitted himself in his evidence that he was not appointed by respondent bank. It is submitted that the claim that he was working as Class IV Employee is totally without any documentary proof. It is also argued that only because services of workman was utilized by respondent No.2 (Brach-Manager) on the casual basis, the workman has no right to claim employment. It is submitted in written argument by the management that the workman was engaged and working for the respondent No.2 (Branch Manager) in his personal capacity and the claimant workman was paid out of petty cash on day to day basis and such type of work can in no manner be termed as appointment of Sh. Dinesh Kumar on the rolls of Bank. He was never recruited by the bank through any selection procedure. According to the written submission of management in absence of any appointment there cannot be a termination and therefore the workman claim of illegal termination does not exist. In the written submission reliance has been placed on a Judgment of Hon‘ble Jharkhand High Court in a case i.e. LPA No.615/2015 titled as Rameshwar Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand wherein it has been held that appellant in that case could not establish the fact that he was regularly appointed worker and therefore, relationship of employer employee was not established that was a back door entry which was absolutely illegal. No Public appointment can be given unless there is advertisement and application and unless others are permitted to compete for post. In the written submission two other Judgments are also cited on behalf of management one being Hon‘ble Jharkhand High Court decision in LPA No.228/2011 titled as Sintu Poddar Versus State of Jharkhand and Delhi High Court decision in CWP No.3705 of 1999 Ajay Kumar Versus Government of NCT. Finally in the written submission of management it has been submitted that the workman never recruited by the bank[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2117 through prescribed procedure, his service was never regularized, his name was never entered in the Muster Roll and he was never issued any appointment letter or offer letter to work in the bank and therefore the relief prayed by workman cannot be granted and the claim is merit less and same may be dismissed. 9. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the claimant-workman. FINDINGS 10. It is admitted fact by the respondent Bank Management in the written statement of the reply to the claim that the workman Dinesh Kumar had worked with the bank although his services were taken on the casual basis by the Branch Manager of the Bank who is respondent No.2 in the present proceeding. Let us examine what are the documentary evidence in support of the claim petition. It is true that neither any appointment letter nor any written termination letter has been produced in the present case by the workman. In the evidence workman Dinesh Kumar has reiterated the contentions and facts raised by him in his claim petition and has brought on the record several copies of Cheques of different dates on the record and also several cash-vouchers through which payment to Dinesh Kumar has been made from time to time. One may notice by seeing these copies of cheques/ cash vouchers/ debit forms that ‗casual workers salary‘ is mentioned in all these cheques/ cash vouchers/ debit forms which have endorsement of Dinesh Ram the claimant. The details of payment through Cheques/ Cash Voucher may be arranged in a Tabular form as follows: Sr. No. Cheques/ Cash Voucher No. Date Amount 1. 804281 04.01.2014 Rs.5,076/- 2. 828259 13.02.2014 Rs.6,200/- 3. 828299 08.08.2014 Rs.4,900/- 4. 767546 04.04.2014 Rs.6,100/- 5. 1887403 05.05.2014 Rs.6000/- 6. 1887471 02.06.2014 Rs.5,250/- 7. 1887331 02.07.2014 Rs.5,500/- 8. 1887714 04.08.2014 Rs.5,600/- 9. 2069037 30.09.2014 Rs.5,600/- 10. 1887776 02.09.2014 Rs.5,600/- 11. 2069109 01.11.2014 Rs.5,600/- 12. 2069189 05.12.2014 Rs.5,600/- 13. 1887678 06.01.2015 Rs.5000/- 14. 8805000 02.01.2015 Rs.5,600/- 15. 001951 02.02.2013 Rs.4,725/- 16. 001709 21.03.2013 Rs.4,200/- 17. 815139 13.04.2013 Rs.4,900/- 18. 815164 01.05.2013 Rs.4,550/- 19. 1888633 June 2013 Rs.5,425/- 20. 1888680 03.07.2013 Rs.5,225/- 21. 014489 08.08.2013 Rs.5,425/- 22. 1888501 13.01.2013 Rs.4,725/- 11. Another set of vouchers which are brought on the record as Annexure W-2 are also documentary evidence in support of workman to show that he has been paid expenses for attending out of office duties for official purposes through various vouchers. In these vouchers it has been clearly mentioned the nature of work for which services of workman Dinesh Kumar was utilized. These vouchers can again be summarized in a Tabular Form as follows:2118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sr. No. Voucher Date Amount 1. 16.04.2012 Rs.50/- 2. 16.04.2012 Rs.50/- 3. 01.05.2012 Rs.50/- 4. 04.05.2012 Rs.50/- 5. 23.05.2012 Rs.50/- 6. 25.05.2012 Rs.50/- 7. 12.06.2012 Rs.50/- 8. 11.06.2012 Rs.50/- 9. 13.06.2012 Rs.50/- 10. 13.06.2012 Rs.10/- 11. 16.08.2012 Rs.50/- 12. 14.06.2012 Rs.50/- 13. 23.08.2012 Rs.50/- 14. 18.08.2012 Rs.50/- 15. 03.07.2012 Rs.50/- 16. 30.06.2012 Rs.50/- 17. 16.04.2012 Rs.50/- 18. 04.07.2012 Rs.50/- 19. 24.08.2012 Rs.50/- 20. 22.08.2012 Rs.50/- 21. 03.09.2012 Rs.50/- 22. 31.08.2012 Rs.50/- 23. 07.09.2012 Rs.50/- 24. 06.09.2012 Rs.50/- 25. 13.09.2012 Rs.50/- 26. 10.09.2012 Rs.50/- 27. 18.09.2012 Rs.50/- 28. 14.09.2012 Rs.50/- 12. It is true that in the cross examination the workman had admitted that he was not engaged through employment exchange and he was appointed by the Bank Manager of the Branch at Jhajjar Road, Rohtak. No appointment letter was given to him but at the same time the workman has reiterated in his evidence that he worked continuously with the bank. Against the above noted documentary evidence of payment of regular wages from the bank, the management could not brought on record any document as to how these payments have been made from the Bank Account if workman was not a casual bank employee. So far as a plea of management that neither the workman was employed by the bank nor he was terminated is concerned it appears that the management is trying to blow hot and cold in same breath. In the written reply and in the evidence the management has accepted that services of workman Dinesh Kumar was utilized by the Branch Manager of the Bank but in personal capacity. If this was so how it was possible for Branch Manager to pay from the bank account if a person was engaged in personal capacity. Meaning thereby the management is concealing some important facts. So far as issuance of any appointment letter and termination letter is concerned it is an admitted fact that the workman has worked with bank and it is clear from documents brought on record that he has been paid regularly as a casual worker through cheque or sometimes through payment vouchers and these documents are therefore very much clear that workman Dinesh Kumar was working as casual worker with the bank and he had served the bank for more than 240 days. Those vouchers which show a very[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2119 small payment of Rs.10 or 50/- on different dates are also indicative of the fact that Dinesh Kumar was engaged in banks official work out of the Bank as well and this clearly indicates that services of Dinesh Kumar being utilized for official purpose by the Bank. 13. The term workman has been defined in the Industrial Dispute Act in Section 2 (s) as follows: “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any Industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for higher or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or employed and for the purpose of any proceeding of this Act in relation to Industrial Dispute includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- i. Xxx xxx (not relevant) ii. Xxx xxx (not relevant) iii. Xxx xxx (not relevant) iv. Xxx xxx (not relevant) 14. The opposite party is a Public Sector Bank and therefore is an Industry is not in dispute and that because of termination of services the present Industrial Dispute has been referred by the Labour Ministry. In this connection, reference can be made to the decision of Devinder Singh Versus Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein, the Hon‘ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Act which deals with the definition of ―workman‖ has observed as follows:- “The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plan language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman”. It is clear from aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that situation such a person would be covered by the definition of ―workman‖ as given in Section 2(s) of the Act. 15. The version of the claimant workman that the services were terminated on 02.02.2015 without any notice or any compensation paid to him remained unchallenged and unrebutted in as much as the management neither could plead against this contention nor any evidence contrary to this fact has been brought on the record. Although it has been stand of the bank management that neither any appointment was given to the claimant nor there was any question of termination of his service. As per provision contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, no workman employed in any Industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under the employer shall be retrenched unless he has been given one month notice in writing or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice. In the present case the workman has been orally prevented to perform his duties since 02.02.2015 is clear termination, although no written termination order has been given to the workman/ claimant. The management witness in his evidence could not dispute the documentary evidence which are proof of payment of wages through various cheques and cash vouchers, although it is stated by the management witness that these payments are made through petty cash payment. I do not agree with the such statement of management witness that payment of more than Rs.4000/- on different dates in year 2013 and payment of more than Rs.5000/- and sometimes above Rs.6000/- in year 2014 on regular basis through cheques and payment vouchers could be said only petty payments and therefore the stand taken by the bank that workman Dinesh Kumar was personal engagement of the Branch Manager for his personal work purpose cannot be accepted. The bank being a Public Sector undertaking was expected to bring on record true and correct facts, the stand of the bank that claimant/ workman was not its employee and having been deployed casually by the Branch Manager in his personal capacity is belied by the documentary record of payment of wages through cash vouchers and cheques as referred hereinabove. In the present case the workman has been able to prove that he had worked continuously on daily wages basis from the period 16.04.2012 till he was prevented to stop the work on 02.02.2015 by oral termination of the services. Considering the incorrect stand taken by the bank it can be concluded that the workman claimant has been a victim of unfair labour practice applied by the bank. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anoop Sharma Versus Executive Engineer Public Health Division No.1 Panipat reported in 2010(3) SCT 318 has held that provisions of Section 25-F are mandatory and non-compliance thereof rendered the infringement of an employee as nullity. Similar view were taken by the Hon‘ble High Court in 2010 (1) Law Herald (SC) 592 in the case of Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana. In which it is held that ―workman worked for 3 years and termination of his services in violation of compliance of provisions of Section 25-F so workman was held entitled to claim relief.‖ In a judgment of Haryana Agricultural University Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another 2011 LLR 1218, wherein it2120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] has been held that ―Termination of services of an employee who has completed 240 days continuous service without payment of retrenchment compensation simultaneously at the time of termination by complying with the provisions of Section 25-F, may attract reinstatement that too with full wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits‖. Therefore, I find force in the claim of workman. 16. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the present reference No. 12012/45/2016-IR(B-II) dated 27.07.2016 is decided in favor of workman-claimant and it is held that the action of management of Union Bank of India, Rohtak in orally terminating the service of workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar w.e.f. 02.02.2015 is illegal, unjustified and against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. The claimant- workman is entitled for reinstatement in the same capacity as he was working before his termination. The workman is further entitled for back wages from the date of his illegal termination. 17. It is therefore- ORDERED That the present ID No.16/2016 titled as Dinesh Kumar Versus Union Bank of India arising out of reference 12012/45/2016-IR(B-II) dated 27.07.2016 is decided in favor of workman-claimant and it is held that the action of management of Union Bank of India, Rohtak in orally terminating the service of workman Sh. Dinesh Kumar w.e.f. 02.02.2015 is illegal, unjustified and against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. The claimant-workman is entitled for reinstatement in the same capacity as he was working before his termination. The workman is further entitled for back wages from the date of his illegal termination. 18. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication. Dated: 05.05.2025 B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 828.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a23/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/78/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen. [No. L-12012/78/2014- IR(B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/2015 Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.( Retd.) Jagat Singh Sisodia S/o. Shri Harisingh Sisodia B-82, Samta Parisar, Omkara Road, Ratlam (M.P.) (Dead, represented by L‘rs Smt. Uma Bai, Wife) Workman[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2121 Versus Zonal Manager Indian Bank, Zonal Office 83, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. Management AWARD (Passed on this 21st day of April-2025.) As per letter dated 17/02/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-12012/78/2014 IR(B-II) dt. 17/02/2015. The dispute under reference related to :- ―Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in terminating the services of workman Shri Jagat Singh Sisodia w.e.f. 17.05.2012 is justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ?‖ After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense. According to the workman, he was first appointed as Peon on daily wages in the Ratlam Branch of the Bank in 1999 and was paid his wages on vouchers maintained by the Bank. He continuously worked till 17.05.2012 when his services were illegally terminated without notice or compensation by management. He used to work and perform works of regular nature. According to him, this action of the management Bank is in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G, 25-H and 25-N of the Act and is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The workman has prayed his reinstatement with back wages and benefits. Management has taken a case that, the workman was never employed by them following any recruitment procedure against any sanctioned vacancy. Even assuming that he was engaged on daily basis, he is not entitled to be termed as workman as defined in the Act, hence no question of termination of his services. Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman. In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross examined by management. Management has filed affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief. He also has been cross examined by workman side. No documentary evidence has been produced by any of the parties. None appeared for argument, hence the case was fixed for award. Management has filed written arguments through their Counsel. It is also to be mentioned here that the workman died during pendency of the reference and is represented by his legal representative. I have gone through the record. The burden to prove the fact that, he worked continuously with the management is on the workman. He could have filed copies of payment vouchers or have got them summoned from the custody of the management which he did not do. Hence, only his statement on oath that to management witness has also controverted the case of workman in their statement on oath will not be sufficient to record a finding that the workman succeeded in proving his continuous engagement as a daily wager from 1999 to 17.05.2012 as claimed by him. Hence, holding the case of the workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman. ORDER Holding the action of management of Indian Bank in terminating the services of workman Shri Jagat Singh Sisodia w.e.f. 17.05.2012 just, legal and proper, the workman is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost. DATE: 21/04/2025 P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 829.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a07/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 39025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-10] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक2122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.07/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-39025/01/2025- IR(B-II)-10] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/RC/07/ 2017 Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.(Retd.) Priyesh Swamy, Clerk, Bank of India, Datouda Branch (8842), Indore District (MP) Through: General Secretary, Nationalized Bank Employees' Union, K.Ka.F-1, Tripti Vihar, Ujjain (MP) Workman Vs The Chairman / Managing Director Bank of India, Head Office, Bandra Kurla (East) Complex, Mumbai-51 Management (JUDGMENT) (Passed on this 30th day of April - 2025) The workman has filed this petition under Section 2A (10) (2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred by the word ‗Act‘, challenging the termination of his services by way of punishment vide its order dated 21.11.2005, and dismissal of appeal against the order. Case of the petitioner is mainly that, he was first appointed with the Bank on 14.09.2012 and was posted as Head Cashier when he was issued a charge sheet by Management Bank with a allegation that on 29.01.2014, he received Rs. 25,000/- from an account holder of the Bank Ishwar Ben, to deposit the said amount in his Saving Account No. 882410110002814 and issued a deposit counter slip under his seal and signature to the Account holder, but did not deposit the amount, and kept the amount with him. An enquiry was conducted against him in violation of principles of Natural Justice and established procedure in this respect. He was not allowed opportunity to cross examine the witness also not allowed to lead defense in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer wrongly held him guilty of the charge and a Disciplinary Authority wrongly awarded punishment of termination of his services which is disproportionate to the charge proved. Case of the Management is that, while posted as Head Cashier in Dadota Branch, the petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 29.10.2014 to deposit with the account of the Account Holder Ishwar Genda Lal and issued counter file under his seal and signature to the account holder. He did not credit the amount in the account and misappropriated it. The Account Holder filed a complaint on 30.12.2014 which was forwarded to the Zonal Manager. It was found during the Preliminary enquiry that, the petitioner had received the amount and issued counter file under his seal and signature but it not credited the amount with the Bank, and had misappropriated it. He had also destroyed/ deleted the corresponding voucher and also deleted the Transaction from the system. He was issued a show cause by Bank on 31.03.2015. He submitted his explanation on 17.04.2025 admitted his guilt and[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2123 sought pardon. Management decided to conduct an enquiry. A charge of misconduct was leveled against him on 07.09.2015 with an allegation of gross misconduct under Clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. An enquiry conducted in which the petitioner appeared on 13.10.2015 and admitted the charges, unconditionally. He was held guilty for the misconduct. After an enquiry and after issuing show cause notice, he was punished for the misconduct. Following Issues were framed on the basis of pleadings vide order dated 11.05.2022 :- Whether the Departmental enquiry conducted against the Workman is just, legal and arbitrary? Petitioner did not filed any affidavit on these issues. He filed photocopy enquiry documents, admitted by management. The Management also filed and proved enquiry documents. Preliminary issue was decided vide order dated 10.10.2022 holding the Departmental enquiry legal and proper. This order is part of this judgment. Following Additional Issues were framed thereafter :- 1. Whether the charges are proved? 2. Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charge proved? None of the parties adduced any evidence on these issues At the stage of the argument also, the petitioner did not appear, hence argument of Mr. Neeraj Kewat for Management have been heard by me. Management has filed written arguments also which are part of record. I have gone through the Written Argument as well. As regards the issue whether the charges are proved from the enquiry papers, perusal of enquiry papers shows that the relevant documents in form of the deposit slips have been proved during the enquiry. The Petitioner himself examined as a defense witness. He admitted issue of the deposit slip and also the sign showed of transaction Id which was deleted by using his User ID in the system with respect to deposit of the amount, on the other hand the prosecution has examined its witness who have supported the charge, hence, the finding of the enquiry officer and the charges proved cannot be held to be have been recorded perversely. As regards, the issue regarding proportionality of punishment, the misconduct proved is an Act of moral turpitude, it is directly linked with honesty and integrity of the petitioner as a employee which are the core values of a Banker. Hence, in its circumstances the punishment also cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charges proved. On the basis of above discussion and findings, the petitioner lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER Petition dismissed. No order as to cost. DATE:- 30/04/2025 P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 830.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ओठरएंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमसय ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a04/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/45/2011- vkbZ vkj (ch- II)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workmen [No. L-12012/45/2011- IR(B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director2124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/R/04/2012 Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.(Retd.) Shri Mahesh Kumar Ghawri S/o Late Shri Mangilal, R/o H.No.12, Sharma Colony, Kumharpura, BHOPAL(M.P.) Workman Vs Dy. General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Pragati Bhawan, India Press Complex, BHOPAL(M.P.) Management (JUDGMENT) (Passed on this 02nd day of May - 2025) As per letter dated 30/11/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L- 12012/45/2011 (IR(B-II)) dt. 30/11/2011. The dispute under reference relates to: “Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce in terminating the services of Shri Mahesh Kumar Ghawriby issuing a publication in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 17/01/2010 is just, fair and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?” Case of the Workman is mainly that he was appointed in 1998, as a Peon in the Vidhisa Branch of the Bank on compassionate basis and worked there to the full satisfaction of his seniors. He could not attend his work due to accident and serious illness about which he had duly informed Management in writing as well orally but the Management terminated his services without any enquiry or issuing any charge sheet in this respect in the year 2010, though he was a permanent employee of the Bank and had been in regular service of the Bank for more than 12 years. According to the Workman, this action of Management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He raised a dispute in this respect after failure of conciliation; the dispute was referred to this Tribunal. He has prayed that holding the termination of his services by Bank against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefits. Case of the management is that, the Workman joined on 01.09.1998 and preceded on leave without informing Bank in October, 1998, he was sent notice a well letters and telegraphic messages advising him to join his workplace. He came back on 21.07.2001 after absence of 428 days, and presumed his Work. He was transferred to Vidhisa and joined their on 04.09.2001. He absented himself unauthorizedly their and was issued notice on 10.07.2004 in the light of Para 5(P) of the Bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002. He submitted his reply which was found insufficient and was awarded minor punishment after a Departmental Enquiry vide order dated 27.04.2005. He did not improve himself and absented himself unauthorizedly from 07.05.2005 to 23.09.2006 for a period of 365 days, he was again sent a notice and letters advising him to join his job, but he did not turned up. Beside this, he further remained absent from 01.07.2008 to 03.08.2009. He was issued a notice under Clause 32 (I & II) of Voluntary Cessation of work under Bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005, to report on his workplace. He reported on 01.09.2009 and assured the Management that he will not repeat it further. According to Management, the Workman again absented himself from his workplace without any notice or information to Management or without any leave sanctioned for a period of 03.10.2009 to 06.10.2009 and 12.10.2009 till date. He was issued a notice again advising him to join and report to its workplace on date 16.11.2009 but he did not report thereafter. A notice dated 14.01.2010 was issued to him on his Workplace, also published in newspaper asking him to report on his Workplace and if he did not report, then assuming that he has abounded the services, his name will be struck after from the Rules. He did not reported bank, hence, his name was struck off the records under Clause 32 (I & II) of the Bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2125 Following issues were framed by my Learned Predecessor vide his order dated 18.04.2016. 1. Whether the Management established that the services of the Workman are terminated as per Para 32 (1 & 2) of Bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005 for unauthorized absence? 2. Whether the termination of services of the Workman by issuing an application on 14.01.2010 is legal? 3. If so, what relief the Workman is entitled to? In evidence, the Workman filed his affidavit as his examination in chief, he was cross-examined by Management. Management has filed affidavit of its witness Rama Chandrashekhar as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by Workman side. Management has filed Bank certified statement of his salary bill and attendance register which have been collectively marked Exhibits. Management also has filed and has proved Bank certified notice dated 10.07.2004, 03.11.2004, 03.02.2005, 16.11.2009, 04.03.2010, publication notice dated 07.03.2010 and report of enquiry and has proved it. None was present at the time of argument. No, written argument was filed by any of the parties. I have gone through the record. Issue No. 1 – From the perusal of Bank certified copy of Attendance Register for the period establishes the fact that, the Workman was not present in the office during period mentioned in the charge. Management witness has stated that, registered notice was sent to the Workman on his address with respect to the charge and also was published in newspaper having circulation. The copy of the newspaper page has been filed and proved. Hence, the fact that, the Workman permanent absent from his workplace is established from above referred evidence. Now the burden is on the Workman to show that his absence was not wilful or not authorized. There is no document in this respect indicating reasons of his absence. In his statement, he has stated, he could not attend his office due to accident and illness. There is nothing in his statement that, he had submitted any document before the Management in this respect explaining his absence. He further stated in his cross-examination that, he had received notice in November 2009, and also came to know about the publication of notice in the newspaper and he went there in the office of Management, but there is no documentary evidence or any other evidence to corroborate his this claim. Hence, on the basis of above discussion, Issue No. 1 is answered against the Workman holding that Management has successfully proved unauthorized absence of the Workman for the period as mentioned. Issue No. 2 – Para 32 (I & II) of the Bipartite Settlement of 2005 is being reproduced as follows: 32. Voluntary Cessation of Employment (i) When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days without prior sanction from the Competent Authority or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally including any extension thereof or when there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or outside, the management at any time thereafter may give a notice to the employee at his last known address as recorded with the Bank calling upon him to report for work within 30 days of the date of notice. Unless the employee reports for work within 30 days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the period of 30 days satisfying the management inter alia that he has not taken up another employment or avocation, the employee shall be given a further notice to report for work within 30 days of the notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered post. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for work thereafter within 30 days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank‟s right to take any action under the law or rules/conditions of service. If the employee fails to report for work within this 30 days period, then he shall be given a final notice to report for work within 30 days of this notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered post. 27 Indian Banks‟ Association (ii) If an employee again absents himself for the second time within a period of 30 days without submitting any application and obtaining sanction thereof, after reporting for duty in response to the first notice given after 90 days‟ of absence or within the 30 days‟ period granted to him for reporting to work on his submitting a satisfactory reply to the first notice, a further notice shall be given after 30 days of such absence giving him 30 days‟ time to report. If he fails to report for work or reports for work in response to the notice but absents himself a third time from work within a period of 30 days without prior sanction, his name shall be struck off from the rolls of the establishment after 30 days of such absence under intimation to him by registered post deeming that he has voluntarily vacated his appointment.2126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (iii) Any notice under this clause shall be in a language understood by the employee concerned. The notice shall be sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due. Where the notice under this clause is sent to the employee by registered post acknowledgement due at the last recorded address communicated in writing by the employee and acknowledged by the bank, the same shall be deemed as good and proper service. On the basis of evidence recorded on Issue No. 1 the termination of services of the Workman could not be faulted in law and is held justified in law. This view and findings are supported by judgement of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager Central Bank of India V.s. Vijay Krishna Neema and Others (2009) 5 SCC 567.The relevant paragraphs are being reproduced as under. ―15. The question as regards validity of Clause 16 of Shastri Award and/or provisions akin thereto is no longer res integra. An employee may, in certain situations, abandon or deemed to have abandoned his job. What constitutes abandonment may be a matter of a statutory provision or agreement between the employer and the Union. Although absence without leave for a long time may constitute a grave misconduct on the part of the employee concerned, in a case of this nature, in view of Clause 16 of the Shastri Award, an employee can be treated to have ceased from employment. 17. Principle of natural justice, it is trite, does not operate irrespective of the statutory provisions. It was not a case where like Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan [(1998) 6 SCC 538 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1601] and Scooters India Ltd. v. M. Mohammad Yaqub [(2001) 1 SCC 61 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 148] , no notice was required to be issued. Clause 16 of the Shastri Award provides for issuance of such notice. If despite service of notice the employee did not report for duty, the consequences thereof would ensue‖. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly. Issue No. 3 – On the basis of evidence recorded on Issue No. 1 and 2 the Workman is held entitled to no relief. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly. On the basis of above findings, the reference is answered as follows. AWARD Holding the action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce in terminating the services of Shri Mahesh Kumar Ghawriby issuing a publication in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 17/01/2010 is just, fair and legal ,he is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost. DATE:- 02/05/2025 P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नइ ददल्ली, 16 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 831.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj गन कैठरज फैक्री जबलृुर ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a54/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 14011/08/2016- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025 S.O. 831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 54/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Gun Carriage Factory Jabalpur and their workmen. [No. L-14011/08/2016- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2127 ANNEXURE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/R/54/2016 Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.(Retd.) The General Secretary, GCF Mazdoor Sangh, Balkrishna Bhawan, East Ghamapur, Jabalpur - 482001 Workman Vs Sr. General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur - 482011 Management (JUDGMENT) (Passed on this 28rd day of April- 2025) As per letter dated 01/06/2016 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L- 14011/08/2016 (IR(DU)) dt. 01/06/2016. The dispute under reference relates to: “1) Whether the action of the management of Gun Carriage Facotry, Jabalpur in not providing employment on compassionate grounds to dependents of Late Mr. Munna Lal, T No. 1660 Ex-Sweeper (Died while in service on 24.12.2000) even after their case was duly recommended by the Screening Committee on compassionate appointments and also approved by the General Manager, GCF, is justified or not? 2) Whether the action of the management of GCF, Jabalpur is justified or not? In not referring the case of Mrs Sheela Bai for Police Verification and Medical Test, when her name has been recommended by the Screening committee on compassionate appointments, and when such recommendation have also been approved by the General Manager, GCF. 3) When, on what date the screening committee on compassionate appointments has recommended the name of Mrs. Sheela Bai for appointment and on what date, the General Manager of GCF has approved the recommendations of the Screening Committee. 4) Though the name of Mrs. Sheela Bai was recommended by the screening committee on compassionate appointments and the General Manager of GCF has approved the recommendations of the Screening Committee, issue of rejection letter dated 25.10.2002, is whether a deviation to normal practice? Whether the issue of such refection letter dated 25.10.2002, amounted to injustice or not? 5) Now, the son late Mr. Munna Lal, Ex-sweeper, GCF has grown up and whether Mr. Mukesh Baghel is entitled for employment on compassionate grounds in GCF, Jabalpur in place of his mother Smt. Sheela Bai or not?” After registering the case on the basis of reference notices were issued to the parties, they appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and defense. Case of the applicant is mainly that, his father Munna Lal was an an employee of Management who died on 24.12.2000 while on duty. His widow i.e. the mother of the applicant applied for employment on compassionate ground, but was not granted. According to the applicant, he was minor at the time of the death of his father, and when he applied for an appointment on compassionate ground, his request was also not accepted by Management, hence, he raised a dispute through Union in this respect before the Deputy Chief Commissioner, Central, Jabalpur. After failure of conciliation, reference was made to this Tribunal. According to the applicant this action of Management is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. He has thus prayed that, holding the action of Management in not granting compassionate appointment to the Applicant son of the deceased Employee is unjust, illegal and arbitrary, he be held entitled to be appointed by the Management on compassionate basis as the dependant son of his deceased father. The case of the Management is mainly that, appointment on compassionate basis is granted to the heirs of Deceased Employees as per Rules in this respect to the extent of 5% of Vacancy which is embarked for compassionate appointment.2128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] According to the Management, the Widow of the Employee submitted application for Compassionate Appointment which was considered and an enquiry was conducted with respect to the financial condition and dependency status of the family. It was found that, the services dues which were paid to the Applicant family subsequent to death of Employee and the amount of family pension both included were sufficient to maintain the family and also that there was no vacancy in quota fixed for compassionate appointment. Hence, claim of compassionate appointment was rejected by Management by an order dated 25.10.2002. It is further the case of the Management that, the Widow approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against this order by way of filing OA No. 377/2006 and a Writ Petition No. 17941 of 2006 against this order was also dismissed after hearing vide order dated 04.02.2008 by a Division Bench of Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. It is further the case of Management, that after having failed to get compassionate appointment for mother, as a widow of the Employee, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for the same; hence, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal will operate as res judicata. According to Management, the claim is barred by delay and alleges also. In evidence, the applicants side has filed photocopy of minutes of meeting of Screening Committee with respect to prayer of the Widow for Compassionate Appointment, report of the Labour Welfare Commissioner, order of the Competent Authority refusing the Compassionate Appointment to the Widow, all admitted by Management, hence marked Exhibit W-1 to W-3, respectively. The applicant Mukesh Baghel has also filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He has been cross-examined by Management. Management has filed photocopy of order of Competent Authority, order of Hon‘ble High Court in W.P. No. 17941/2006, order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur bench, in OA No. 377/2006, application of Widow for compassionate appointment, communication of Management, another application of Widow sent to Management, all admitted by Workman side, hence, marked Exhibit M-1 to M-6. I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Shri S.K. Mishra for Workman, and Shri Arun Patel for Management. None of the parties has preferred any written submissions. I have gone through the record as well. On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, following issued come up for determination :- 1. Whether the claim of Compassionate Appointment made by dependant son of deceased Workman Munna Lal before Management, is bared by res judicata? 2. Whether the action of Management in refusing compassionate appointment to dependants of deceased employee is justified in law and law? Issue No. 1 – Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is being reproduced as follows :- “No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court….. …………………………….. …………………………… …………………………..” Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that, the earlier litigation was between the mother of the applicant and the Department, hence, held not operated as res judicata. I‘m not inclined to accept this argument because the source of claim made by the Mother and the Son is one and same, both claimed compassionate appointment as dependant of the deceased employee. Hence, it is held that, the claim of the Applicant in the case in hand is barred by res judicata. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. Issue No. 2 – As it is clear from the order of Competent Authority, the Dependants got total Rs. 87,410/- as gratuity PF Insurance and Family Assistance. In addition to this, family pension Rs. 1600/- + DA of 49% on the date of order that is 25.10.2002 total Rs. 2384 was given on monthly basis. According to the Competent Authority there was a ceiling of 5% of vacancy available for Direct Recruitment which could be given on the compassionate appointment and at the time when the prayer was being considered, no vacancy was available in the quota. The Competent Authority further held that, Family Pension plus amount which the family would receive plus payments subsequent to death will be sufficient for the maintenance of Family, they are still above poverty line, and the claim was rejected.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2129 Learned Counsel for Management has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank V.s. Ajithkumar G.K. in Civil Appeal No. 255/2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30532/2019, in this respect. In the referred case, a Division Bench of Hon‘ble High Court has laid down certain parameters for granting compassionate appointment the relevant portion in Para 43, 44 and 45 are being reproduced as follows :- 43. In our considered view, the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and the requirements of disclosure relating to financial condition and the details of liabilities of the deceased employee in the prescribed formats (Annexures I and II, respectively) would leave none in doubt about the intention of the policy makers. Overcoming the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income and existence of indigent circumstances necessitating employment to one of the dependants being at the heart of the scheme of 1993, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept it as a valid proposition of law that grant of terminal benefits cannot be of any consequence since paragraph 3.2 of the scheme of 1993 permits the offer of appointment to be kept open till such time the surviving minor dependant, who is to be offered appointment, attains majority. To our mind, what paragraph 3.2 postulates is that, despite there being indigent circumstances necessitating appointment, the object of compassionate appointment thereunder should not be frustrated for mere absence of an eligible dependant family member. The offer would be kept open for such minor to attain majority, whereafter he would be offered appointment subject to suitability, and once he accepts the appointment, he would be under an obligation to look after the other indigent family members. Although paragraph 3.2 may not be wholly in sync with the objective of overcoming immediate financial difficulties, it has to be seen as a benevolent clause extending the benefit of compassionate appointment even beyond reasonable limits, obviously to cover exceptional cases, for ensuring the right of the family members of the deceased employee to live with human dignity. The idea for incorporation of this clause in the scheme of 1993 cannot be confused with grant/release of terminal benefits. Both operate in different arena and, therefore, we respectfully disagree with the reasoning in paragraph 19 of Canara Bank (supra). 44. As pertinently held in B. Kishore (supra), indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and that if such indigence is not proved, grant of relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Also, judicial decisions abound that in deciding a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, the financial situation of the deceased employee's family must be assessed. In a situation otherwise, the purpose of the scheme may be undermined; without this evaluation, any dependent of an employee who dies while in service might claim a right to employment as if it is heritable. 45. The ratio decidendi of all these decisions have to be read in harmony to achieve the noble goal of giving succour to the dependants of the employee dying-in-harness, who are genuinely in need, and not with the aim of giving them a post for another post. One has to remember in this connection the caution sounded in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. Hence, in the light of these facts, the order of Competent Authority refusing Compassionate Appointment cannot be held to be unjustified in law. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly. On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows. ORDER Holding action of the Management of Gun Carriage Factory, refusing the compassionate appointment to the Applicant Son of deceased employee Munna Lal just, legal and proper, he is held entitled to no relief. No order as to cost. DATE:- 28/04/2025 P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer2130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नइ ददल्ली, 19 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 832.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdka s vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a02/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [स.ं ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch- I)-63] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 19th May, 2025 S.O. 832.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-63] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO.CGIT/LC/RC/02/2012 Present:P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.(Retd.) H.R. Mehar, S/o Late Shri Ratanlal Mehar, Ex-Senior Assistant, State Bank of India, Hamidia Road Branch, Bhopal, R/o B-3/A Priyadarshini Colony, Near Krishna Arcade, Baugsevaniya, Bhopal – 462043. Workman Vs 1. The Dy. General Manager (O&C–NW-II) & Notified Appellate Authority (NAA), State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Bhopal – 462011 2. The Asst. General Manager (Admn.) & Notified Disciplinary Authority (NDA), State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Bhopal - 462011 Management (JUDGMENT) th (Passed on this 24 day of April-2025) The workman has filed this petition under Section 10 (2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, hereinafter referred to by word ‗Act‘, against the Management Bank challenging the order of Management Bank terminating his services vide order dated 29.01.2008, and dismissal of his appeal by Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.09.2008 with an allegation that while he was posted as Senior Assistant in Hamidia Road Branch of the Bank in Bhopal, he was issued A charge sheet dated 11.11.2006 containing five allegations and a charge based thereon. An allegation-wise reply dated 23-11-2006(Annexure A-3) bringing out the factual position was submitted by me. The pre- determined enquiry was commissioned vide letter No. R-1/OPS/ Bhopal/ Comp./ 465 dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure A-4), a copy of which was endorsed to me without assigning the reasons for the enquiry despite my satisfactory reply to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer(EO) returned his findings dated 10.9.2007(AnnexureA-5)on apprehended lines holding all the allegations and the charge as "proved", with which the NDA agreed and forwarded a copy thereof to me for my[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2131 comments. I made elaborate submission vide letter dated 11.10.2007(Annexure A-6) but it failed to dispel the NDA's bias and prejudice. NDA issued show cause notice (SCN) No.RO/AGM(Ops.)R-1/Comp/956 dated 1.12.2007(Annexure A-7, proposing the extreme penalty of removal from service. He sowed, vide my reply dated 11.12.2007(Annexure A-8), ample cause for not imposing the proposed penalty. Still the NDA ordered removal vide order dated 29-1-2008(Annexure A-9). He preferred an appeal dated 10- 3-2008(Annexure A-10) and made supplementary submission dated lated10-6-2008,17-6-2008and14-7-2008(Annexure10-A,B&C,respectively). A personal hearing scheduled for 20-8-2008 at 4.00 pm was notified on 18-8-2008 but it was held on 21.8.2008 at 11.00 am wherein he put a written submission dated 20-8-12008(Annexure A-11), enclosing a copy each of the three supplementary submissions earlier made by him. Furthermore, as alleged by petitioner, personal hearing are to be minutized then and there and a copy of the minutes is required to be supplied to the appellant immediately, but it did not occur so in his case. Therefore, he had to apply on23-8-2008 for the minutes of the personal hearing held n 21-8- 2008(Annexure A-12). As the said minutes did not forth come even after a month, a reminder dated 22-9-2008(Annexure A-12-A) was sent. Even then, the minutes were not received, but the non-speaking order dated 22-9-2008(Annexure A-13) passed mechanically without application of mind by the NAA, blindly upholding the unjust decision of the NDA was received on 22-9-2008 itself. A second reminder dated 17-10-2008(Annexure A-14) supplied a copy of the so called minutes on 30-10-2008. As the so called minutes turned out to be farcical and misleading in as much as it did not at all reflect the happenings during the personal hearing completely and correctly, the applicant sent a letter dated 18-11-2008(Annexure A-15) to the NAA, praying for modification of the minutes in tandem with the actual proceedings. But the NAA instead of treading the path of truth, chose to stick to falsehood vide letter No.NW-1/DGM/DPS/276 dated 29- 11-2008(Annexure A-16) which was received on 1-12-2008. The applicant had to therefore, mail/courier another letter dated 26-12- 2008(Annexure A-17) to the NAA, beseeching restoration of justice and fair play at least in recordings, if not in dealings and decision- making. Incidentally, the Applicant is also deprived of the minutes of the personal hearing given by the NDA on 14-12-2007. The Management has rebutted the claim of workman with a pleading that M.P. Madhya Kshetran Vidyut Vitran Company had a current account in Hamidia Road Branch of the Bank. A complaint was received from the company that cheque no.10375 dated 25-8-2005 issued for amount of Rs. 1770/- in favour of Executive Engineer (O&M) whereas an amount of Rs.17,70,000/- was been debited from the account of the company. It was found that payee‘s name was changed from Executive Engineer (O&M) MPSEB, Raisen to Executive Engineer (O&M),MPSEB, Bhopal. The amount in words had been changed from Rs.1770/- to Rs/17,70,000/-. Amount mentioned in "under Rs." was changed from 1771/- to Rs.17,70,001/-. The amount in figures was changed to Rs. 17,70,000/-.The workman was working as a Senior Assistant and was instrumental in clearance of cheque. A departmental charge-sheet was issued on 11- 11-2006. The workman submitted his reply on 23-11-2006 and the inquiry was ordered to be done. The workman was given full opportunity to present his case during the inquiry. The inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10-9-2007 holding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Inquiry Report and forwarded a copy to the workman for taking his stand on 18-9- 2007. The workman submitted reply of show cause notice on 10-10- 2007.After hearing the workman side, sentence of removal from service with superannuation benefits service with superannuation benefits was passed. The applicant/workman filed appeal before Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal after hearing the Workman.‖ It is further the case of the Management that, the role of the Appellant Workman and the Passing Authority Mr. U.K. Saxena was not identical hence, different punishments were given to both and there can be no parity in punishment as claimed by the Appellant Workman. Also that, the charges were rightly held proved by the Enquiry Officer and the punishment of removal from service is not disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Following issue was framed on the basis of pleadings: 1. Whether the Departmental Enquiry conducted was legal and proper? On the basis of evidence, this preliminary issue was decided vide order of this Tribunal dated 16.03.2020 holding Departmental Enquiry just,legal and proper. This order is part of this Judgment. FollowingAdditionalIssueswereframedon16.03.2020 – 1. Whether the finding of Enquiry Officer that the charges were proved are correct in law and fact? 2. Whether the punishment awarded is proper? 3. Relief to which the Workman is entitled? Parties were given opportunity to produce evidence, on these additional issues. The petitioner workman filed affidavit which is part of record, only Para - 9 to 11 of the affidavit have been held to be relevant to the additional issue as per order of this Tribunal dated 24.01.2024.2132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Management has not filed any evidence and affidavit on additional issues. Photocopy of the Disputed Cheque and Bank Instructions have been filed by Management. I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Akash Chaudhary and Mr. Santanu Seth. Learned Counsel Mr. Pranay Choubey served his argument on behalf of Bank. I have gone through the records as well. Parties have filed written arguments. I have gone through the Written Arguments also. Additional IssueNo.1 – The case of the petitioner on additional issue No. 1 is that, findings of Enquiry Officer is perverse and is based on no evidence. There is not even an iota of evidence produced during the enquiry which is sufficient to prove any of the charges of misconduct. Learned Counsel further submits that, a Criminal Trial also proceeded against the petitioner and his supervisor officers Umesh Kumar Saxena and Manager Udhav Das, which was registered as ST No. 216/2011, same set of charges and evidence was produced before the Court and the charges were held not proved. Furthermore, it is also been submitted that the Cheque which is the subject matter of the misconduct alleged, was of amount over which the Workman did not have any authority to pass it, rather it was to be passed by his Superior Officer Shri. V.C. Saxena, the Passing Officer. The Enquiry Officer did not appreciate this fact and also failed to notice this fact that, the Petitioner Workman did not have specimen signature book containing the specimen signature of the drawers, hence was not in a position to compare the specimen signatures. They were not in his system as well. He was required only to see that, the Cheque was in order. He did his job and after finding that Cheque was in order and was Properly presented, he forwarded it to the Passing Officer who passed it, and thereafter payment was made. Learned Counsel has further referred to a communication of 28.12.1992 made by the S.B.I. Bhopal, vide its letter to the Corporate Centre at Mumbai. Letter No. PD/CIR/5979 dated 28.12.1992 seeking clarification whether the Cashiers can be duty bound to compare the signatures from specimen signature book when it is not provided to them. This letter was responded by the Corporate Centre, vide letter No. PER/IR/39203 dated 23.03.1993, which agreed with the enquiry of the S.B.I., Bhopal. Hence on this ground also, the petitioner could not be fastened with the liability to compare the signature of the drawers of the Cheque from specimen signature book that it was not available to him. The Enquiry Officer recorded his finding ignoring this fact also Learned Counsel has referred to following judgment in this respect 1. CPF M.V. Anthony V.s. Bharat Gold MinesLtd., 1999 (3) SCC 679 (Para. 34) 2. G.M. Tank V.s. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446 Para-30. 3. Ram Lal V.s. State of Rajasthan (2024) Vol.1 SCC 175 (Para 12) 4. Rasikla lVaghajibhai PatelV.s.Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (1985) 2 SCC 35. 5. A.L. Kalra V.s. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. (1984) 3 SCC 316 . On the other hand, learned Counsel for Management Bank has submitted that the standard of proof required for proof of a charge is not the same in Criminal Trialsand Departmental Proceedings. Secondly, evidence collected during the Enquiry positively shows that, had the petitioner been vigilant and had exercised due diligence, the fraud could have been governed and adjudicated. He further submits that the Passing Officer had passed the Cheque for payment only in the system and not on the Cheque, where as both were required for payment. The petitioner would have known this fact, had he been duly diligent. Hence, as submitted by Learned Counsel for management, the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding proof of charges is correct, and there is no perversity. Before any discussion, the settled principle of law with respect to proof required in Criminal Trial and Departmental Proceedings has crystallized through various judgments and requires to be mentioned and is being mentioned as follows: The settled proposition of law is that the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a departmental enquiry. Following judgments are being referred to in this respect. Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255 Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10 , 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2133 In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 (vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously." In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot be convicted by a 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 of 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 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 commission 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. " The charges against the Workman were as follows:- 1. The Signature of the Senior Accounts Officer MPSEB Bhopal, and the correction in the Cheque verified by Regional Accounts Officer, under his signature were not compared by the petitioner in the record on spice-men signature book with the branch. 2. The petitioner did not examine the Cheque perused minutely and made the payment. 3. The petitioner made payment of the amount in the Cheque of one R.L. Mishra, who was authorized to receive payment by the Executive Engineer without confirming the Cheques and identity of the person receiving the amount. 4. The petitioner made payment of the amount in Cheque without being passed by the Passing Officer. 5. All this resulted into loss of Rs. 17,70,000/- to the Bank, hence the petitioner committed misconduct as defined in Clause 5(j) of Memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 The Enquiry Officer found that, though the Cheque was passed by the Passing Officer Mr. U.C. Saxena in the system, he had not recorded this on the Cheque. He further found that there were corrections in the Cheque which were not examined properly, and since the Cheque was presented before the petitioner working as Cashier at that time, he was duty bound to examine the cheque minutely and forward it to the Passing Officer thereafter. The Enquiry Officer further recorded a finding that, by not doing so, the petitioner was found to have acted not with due diligence and had committed misconduct. Though it has been fervently argued from the side of the petitioner that, firstly, he did not have the Specimen Signature Book with him, secondly, signatures of the account holders were not there in his system, and thirdly, the cheque was beyond its passing limit and hence, he forwarded it to the Passing Officer who had the Specimen Signature Book of Account Holders and was under obligation to compare the signatures and thereafter take decision about passing of the Cheque or not but it cannot be denied that there was no endorsement of the Passing Officer on the cheque; it was only passed in the system. Also, keeping in view the fact that the Cheque had so many corrections on it, it can be safely said had the petitioner been diligent enough, the payment would not have been made. No doubt, the petitioner could not have made payment of the amount in the Cheque single-handedly, even then, his lack of due diligence is established from the evidence in enquiry. Hence, on the basis of the above2134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] discussion, holding the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges were proved was recorded correctly. Additional Issue No.1 is answered accordingly. Additional issue No. 2 and 3 – Since both the issue are interconnected, they have been taken together. Settled Preposition of Law with respect to punishment in Departmental proceedings, crystallized through various decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court and High Courts is that it is within the domain of the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment, the scope of Judicial Review is very limited and the Tribunals are not an Appellate Court, while reviewing a order of Punishment. An order of punishment could be reviewed or interfered by Tribunal only when it is so disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The relevant decisions in this respect are being referred to as follows: Hon‘ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under: “The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon‘ble Apex Court has observed that: “6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline required to be maintained, and the department/ establishment which the delinquent person concerned works.” In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon‘ble Apex Court on review of a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal position in the following words: “11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural imp0ropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision- making process and not the decision. 12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.‖ In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows: “8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.” In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon‘ble Supreme Court stated that: “The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. Hon‘ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that “The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2135 of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts. Moreover, the Banks being financial institution; where the hard earned money of the public at large is kept, and any disorderly atmosphere in the Bank premises may lead to loss to trust of the depositors on the Banking institution; which may ultimately lead to collapse of financial system of the country and the same is not permissible at all. Hon‘ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that: “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.” It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that Mr. V.C. Saxena was the Officer who had compared the Signature of Drawers on the Cheque and corrections and had passed it in the system. He was also issued a charge-sheet along with the petitioner, referring the identical charges of misconduct against him and was found guilty after the enquiry. But, he was awarded punishment of only reduction of two increments. Whereas, for the identical charges the petitioner was awarded punishment of removal from service, which is arbitrary, unjust and against parity. In fact, the petitioner has been punished only for the mistake by awarding him sentence of removal from service and the Officer has been spared by awarding less punishment. Learned Counsel has referred to following judgments in support of his arguments that, when the charges are identical and role is also identical, there should be no disparity in punishment. 1. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Pratap Singh, (2001) 10 SCC 530 2. On an enquiry being held, the enquiry authority found that the allegation of misconduct is proved and the disciplinary authority on consideration of the report of the enquiry authority and the other relevant material dismissed the first respondent from service. Thereafter, a reference to the Labour Court at the instance of the first respondent was made. The Labour Court though held on a preliminary question that the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the first respondent is valid came to the conclusion after perusing the documentary and oral evidence on record that the dismissal was not justified and held that he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service and other consequential benefits. A writ petition was filed in the High Court which was allowed but on the basis of certain offer made, the learned Single Judge also directed that the appellant shall pay to the first respondent salary from the date of discharge till the date of the order in a lump sum of Rs 50,000. Thereupon both the management and the workman filed two appeals. In the appeals, several questions were raised as to whether the act attributed to the first respondent would amount to misconduct at all which will entail a disciplinary enquiry at the instance of the management to end up with his dismissal; strong reliance was placed on Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut [(1984) 1 SCC 1 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 42 : (1984) 1 SCR 230] . Ultimately, however, the two learned Judges were agreed on one aspect of the matter that the question, whether on misconduct attributed to the workman there should have been causal connection between misconduct and employment of the workman may not be of much significance when such acts have taken place within the premises of the factory, should be decided in an appropriate case. What influenced the Court in deciding the matter is that: “Since as many as three workmen on almost identical charges were found guilty of misconduct in connection with the same incident, though in separate proceedings, and one was punished with only one month's suspension, and the other was ultimately reinstated in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, it would be denial of justice to the appellant if he alone is singled out for punishment by way of dismissal from service.” 2. State of U.P. Vs. Raj Pal Singh,(2010) 5 SCC 783. Though, on principle the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges levelled against the five employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the2136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for different delinquents. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees. 3. L.I.C. Vs. Triveni Sharma Mishra,(2014) 10 SCC 346 From the papers on record before us, it appears that for mentioning less qualification to secure the job, another similarly situated employee (one Daluram Patidar) was let off by Life Insurance Corporation of India by awarding punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly taken note of the said fact while allowing the writ petition, and directing the employer to consider the imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the writ petitioner. 4. C.D. Sharma Vs. Union of India, 2013 SCC Online Del 1733 (Para 12 &14). 5. Director General of Police Vs. G. Dasayan, (1998) 2 SCC 407 (Para8). On the second ground that the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, was not the competent authority, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal was not right in assuming that the transfer was for administrative purpose and during the pendency of enquiry as the Police Standing Orders enabled the transfer of Constable of one district to another district. The relevant PSO was produced which reads that a Police Constable is liable to serve anywhere in the State. The order of transfer from Kanyakumari District to Tirunelveli District at the relevant time was not challenged. Therefore, this ground of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of dismissal cannot also be supported. The third ground that the co-delinquents except the Head Constable were let off though the charges were identical, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer so far as those two delinquents were concerned. However, the Head Constable, who was also charged along with the respondent, was compulsorily retired by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that, the Cheque was first produced before the petitioner he was required in rules to minutely cross-examine it, and he got forwarded it only with the fact that Cheque was in order. Had he minutely examined it, he would not have forwarded it, to the passing officer. Hence, his role was more serious and he cannot be claimed parity with the passing officer. He has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu V.s. M. Mangayarkarasi Civil Appeal No.11345-11346 of 2018 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 675-676 of 2017. In this case Hon‘ble the Supreme Court has observed that the gravity of misconduct which was established against the Appellants was distinct from and of a more serious nature then what was found against other employees. The charges against the petitioner have been referred to earlier. Charges against the Passing Officer Mr. Saxena are being reproduced as follows. "(i) The CSO has passed the cheque for payment in the system without passing the same by putting his full signature in token of having passed the cheque. (ii) CSO did not verify the genuineness of signature of Sr. Accounts Officer, MPSEB Bhopal as drawing official and signatures appearing for authentication of cuttings and alterations on the cheque with specimen signatures with bank's records. (iii) CSO did not scrutinize the cheque and failed to alteration/overwriting figures of authenticated. the notice on amount was cheque that in not (iv) CSO did of not the ascertain payee the who authorized the other person to receive payment before passing the payment of the cheque in the system. (v) Due to negligence on his part. Bank has incurred financial loss of Rs. 17.70 lacs. Hence, for his acts mentioned alongside he was negligent in performing of his duties, and thereafter failed to protect Bank interest for not discharging his duties without due care and diligence thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an Officer and contravened Rules No. 50(1) and 50(4) of SBIOSR governing his services in the Bank.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2137 On analysis of these charges, it is established that they are identical in nature with respect to the petitioner and the Passing Officer Mr. Saxena. This is also indisputable that both were held guilty of having committed misconduct after the enquiry and were awarded punishment. The petitioner was awarded punishment of removal, whereas the Passing Officer Mr. Saxena was awarded only the punishment of reduction of two increments. In a multi tier system, everyone has to be vigilant. Such systems are designed to prevent loss even if one Agent in the system does not act with due diligence or compromises with his vested interest. The petitioner did not notice the deficient instrument, but the Passing Officer also failed to notice the deficiencies. It was the Passing Officer who was under obligation to compare the signature and after having been satisfied with the signature on Cheque and then to forward for payment in which he failed. Hence, the argument of the Learned Counsel for Management Bank that the role of the petitioner and the Passing Officer were different, and punishment could be easily distinguished, cannot be accepted. It is held that the roles of these two are identical, and the fault of the petitioner cannot be held to be greater than that of the Passing Officer. In the light of this finding, case referred to by Learned Counsel for management can be distinguished on facts. As held in the cases referred, if the charges are identical and the role is also identical, parity should be maintained in the punishment also. In the case in hand, the Management Bank has failed to maintain this parity. Hence, the punishment awarded to the Cashier is held unjust and arbitrary. The petitioner is thus held to be entitled to parity in punishment, and on the basis of this discussion, setting aside the removal of petitioner vide order dated 29.01.2008, it is liable to be modified to reduction to a lower stage in the Scale of pay by three stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction, and on the extra period of reduction, it will have the effect of postponing future increments. The petitioner is held entitled to be reinstated and to be deemed to be in continuous service from the date of his removal benefits till the date of his superannuation, but without back wages also held entitled to all in service and post retiral benefits. Issue No 2&3 are answered accordingly. ORDER Setting aside the removal of petitioner vide order dated 29.01.2008, it is modified to reduction to a lower stage in the Scale of pay by three stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction, and on the extra period of reduction, it will have the effect of postponing future increments. The petitioner is reinstated and to be deemed to be in continuous service from the date of his removal till the date of his superannuation or till date whichever is earlier, but without back wages and is also held entitled to all in service and post retiral benefits. No order as to costs. Petition stands disposed accordingly DATE:- 24/04/2025 P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presidingofficer नइ ददल्ली, 19 मइ, 2025 का.अ. 833.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a76/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/116/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक New Delhi, the 19th May, 2025 S.O. 833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 76/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/116/2012- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director2138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 24, 2025/JYAISTHA 3, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/R/76/2013 Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S..(Retd) Shri Ramshankar Kushwah, S/o Patiram Kushwah, C/o Shri Vijay Singh Kushwah, Ward No. 25, Near Subhash Pandey Gali, Tulsi Colony, Ganeshpura, Morena Workman Vs The Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, City Centre, Gwalior (M.P.) Management (JUDGMENT) (Passed on this 01th day of May- 2025) As per letter dated 16/05/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-12012/116/2012 (IR(B-I)) dt. 16/05/2013. The dispute under reference relates to: “Whether Shri Ramshankar Kushwah is a workman within the provision of Industrial Dispute Act. If so, whether his services were terminated in illegal manner then what relief he is entitled to?” Case of the Workman as taken by him in his statement of claim is that, he was appointed by Bank as Messenger, on 01.12.1985, he worked till 04.06.1986 and was reemployed from 05.07.1956 as a Waterman. He continuously worked as a Waterman with the Bank for 23 years, from February, 1986 and was paid salary. The Management disengaged him without any notice or compensation which is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act, hence unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He challenged this action of Management before Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. by way of filing W.P. No. 5520/2009 which was disposed with an observation that, “he may approach this Tribunal.” Thereafter, he raised a dispute with the concern Assistant Labour Commissioner. After failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to this Tribunal. Case of Management is mainly that, he was never employed in any capacity with the Bank as a Messenger or Waterman; hence, there is no question of his termination by the Bank. Further, it is the case of the Management is that his engagement with the Branch for filing water and binding of specimen signature book is wholly non- messengerial work. The Management has accordingly prayed that the reference be answered against the Workman. The Workman has filed a rejoinder wherein he has retreated his case . In evidence, the Workman has filed photocopy documents which are Letter dated 14.2.1986, Certificate dated 31.3.1988 issued by Sub Post Master, Certificate issued by Tehsildar, Certificate issued by Jilla Sahkari Kendriya Bank, Certificate issued by Dy. Registrar, Letter dated 20.12.1990 by S.B.I., Authorization letter dated 15.9.1993 by S.B.I., Office order dated 21.8.1996 by S.B.I, Certificate issued by Station Master, Certificate dated 25.7.1998 by S.B.Ι., Certificate issued by Tehsildar, Certificate dated 29.8.1998 issued by Municipality, Requisition letter dated 10.11.1998 by S.B.I., Requisition letter by workman, Copy of peon book, Letter dated 29.11.2004 by S.B.I., Request letter by workman, Letter dated 10.7.2006 by S.B.I., Request letter dated 15.7.2006 by S.B.I., Copy of peon book and Receipt and has proved it as Exhibits W-1 to W-21. The Workman has further filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He has been cross-examined by Management. The Management has also filed and proved photocopy documents Exhibit M-1 to M-29 which are applications filed by the Workman before the Branch Manager for payment of his wages, over which there are endorsements regarding payment.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 24, 2025/ज्य ेष् ठ 3, 1947 2139 Management has filed affidavit of its witness as his examination-in-chief. This witness never turned up for cross-examination. At the time of argument, Learned Counsel for Workman did not appear, hence argument of Mr. Praveen Yadav Learned Counsel for Management were heard. Both the parties have filed written arguments which are part of record. I have gone through the Written Submissions as well the record. On perusal of record in the light of rival argument, following issue come up for determination. 1. Whether the Workman has successfully proved his continuous employment from 1986 till date of his termination? 2. Whether the disengagement of Workman by Management is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act? Issue No. 1 - As pleaded by Management Bank in the Para 4 of their written statement that as per records available with them, the Workman worked in Agriculture Development, Branch Jaura up to 04.04.2009. He worked during the year 2007-08 for 186 days and 37 days from 2008-09, hence he did not worked continuously for 240 days in any Calendar year. Case of the Workman is that, he continuously worked for 240 days in every year. The Workman has corroborated his case in his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He has proved photocopy documents which are exhibit W-1 Order of Branch Manager dated 14.02.1986, authorizing the Workman to receive Dak on behalf of the Management Bank. Documents Exhibit W-2 to W-11 corroborated the fact that, the Workman worked as a Messenger during the period in question. In his cross-examination also he has stated that he used to work as a Waterman and Dak Runner and he was paid by Bank separately for these two services. He also admits that he used to do binding work in the Branch. He has admitted the applications filed by him during this period seeking payment for Book binding of different registers which are exhibit M-1 to M-22. Documents M-23 to M-29 shows that he was paid for filing water in the Bank meant for the Staff and customers. Since, the Management witness did not appear for cross-examination, hence his affidavit as his examination-in-chief cannot be read in evidence. From the evidence, in form of documents and statement as mentioned above, it comes out that, the Workman had been working as a binder and he also worked as a Dak Runner on different days for which he was paid separately for each work. This fact discloses that, he was engaged by Bank on as and when required basis for different jobs for which he was paid separately. It goes to show that, his engagement even a daily wager was not on regular basis. The burden to prove his engagement for 240 days in a year as defined under Section 25 B of the Act is of the Workman and not on Management. His statement leads that documents filed and proved by him, and the documents filed by management admitted by him did not establish his claim that he worked continuously for 240 days as a regular daily wager in any year, hence, holding that the Workman cannot prove his continuous engagement even as a regular daily wager for 240 days in a year. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly. Issue No. 2- In the light of above discussion and findings, Issue No. 2 is answered against the Workman. On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly. No order as to cost. DATE:- 01/05/2025 P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer 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.