Home› India› This Gazette may contains Multiple Ministry / Organization› This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects...
Date: 2025-04-05 Category: Weekly State: Union Government Country: India

This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

Issued by This Gazette may contains Multiple Ministry / Organization · This Gazette may contains Multiple Departments

Research with AI Agent Chat with Document Generate Summary Translate Helpful Share Add to Project Create Task

Executive Summary & Key Takeaways

Okay, I'm ready to analyze the provided policy text and generate the report. Given the document's format, length, and content, it is a compilation of amendments and announcements related to personnel appointments and industrial dispute resolutions. Therefore, the report will treat it as a collection of *amendments* and *announcements*, focusing on summarizing the key changes and actions described within. Here's the report: **Report on Government Policy Announcements and Amendments** **1. Executive Summary:** This report summarizes several official notifications and orders published by the Government of India, primarily related to appointments within the banking sector and resolutions of industrial disputes. The core purpose of these notifications is to effect changes in leadership roles within public sector banks, announce the outcomes of industrial dispute adjudications, and ensure compliance with labor laws. Key findings include the nomination and appointment of individuals to Director and Managing Director positions in various banks, and the publication of awards from Industrial Tribunals, often resulting in dismissals of claims due to lack of prosecution or evidence. **2. Introduction:** The purpose of this report is to provide an informative overview of recent government policy announcements and amendments, as evidenced by the provided document. The analysis focuses on changes to leadership within public sector banks and the outcomes of industrial disputes, based solely on the information contained within the text. **3. Policy Overview:** * The announcements can be broadly categorized as related to: * **Banking Sector Leadership:** Appointments and nominations of individuals to key positions in public sector banks. * **Industrial Dispute Resolution:** Publication of awards from Central Government Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts related to disputes between managements and workmen. * **Core Objectives (inferred from text):** * To ensure effective management and leadership within nationalized banks through timely appointments and nominations. * To provide a formal record of the outcomes of industrial dispute resolutions, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal processes. **4. Background and Rationale:** The document suggests ongoing efforts to maintain stability and efficiency within the banking sector through strategic personnel changes. The announcements related to industrial disputes indicate a process for addressing conflicts between management and employees, likely aiming to maintain industrial harmony and ensure fair treatment of workers. The amendments/announcements seem designed to fix changes in personnel management or to formally record the outcomes of legal proceedings. The high frequency of dismissals due to the petitioner's absence may be something the Ministry of Labour is aiming to address **5. Key Provisions / Changes:** Since the document presents a collection of announcements and orders, the following is a summary of key changes/actions: * **Banking Sector Appointments:** * **Bank of Baroda:** Smt. Parvathy Sundaram replaced by Shri Manoranjan Mishra as Director. * **Punjab & Sind Bank:** Shri K.P. Patnaik replaced by Shri Vivek Srivastava as Director. * **Central Bank of India:** Smt. Charulata Kar replaced by Shri Manoranjan Dash as Director. * **State Bank of India:** Shri Rama Mohan Rao Amara appointed as Managing Director for a period of three years. * **Punjab National Bank:** Shri Ashok Chandra appointed as Managing Director and CEO. * **Indian Bank:** Shri Binod Kumar appointed as Managing Director and CEO. * **Industrial Dispute Resolutions:** * A significant number of cases before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in Nagpur (CGITCUMLABOUR COURT, NAGPUR) and other locations were dismissed, often due to the absence of the claimant/petitioner or lack of evidence to support their claims. These cases involved disputes related to termination of services, denial of benefits, and demands for regularization. * One case involving Punjab National Bank (ID No.032014) resulted in an award of compensation of Rs. 3,33,000 to a workman due to illegal termination. The tribunal found that the workman was a 'workman' and the management violated Section 25F of the ID Act. * The notification describes Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which deals with publication of awards. **6. Target Audience and Stakeholders:** * **Banking Sector:** Nationalized banks, their employees, and stakeholders, particularly those affected by leadership changes (Bank of Baroda, Punjab & Sind Bank, Central Bank of India, State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Indian Bank). * **Labor and Employment Sector:** Managements and workmen involved in industrial disputes, trade unions, and relevant government agencies (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Industrial Tribunals, Labour Courts). * **General Public:** Given that these relate to nationalized banks, the outcomes indirectly affect the general public. **7. Implementation Aspects (Inferred):** * **Responsible Agencies/Bodies:** * **Department of Financial Services (Ministry of Finance):** Responsible for issuing notifications related to bank appointments. * **Ministry of Labour and Employment:** Responsible for publishing awards from Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts. * **Central Government Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts:** Responsible for adjudicating industrial disputes. * **Timelines/Procedures:** * Appointments are generally effective "with immediate effect and until further orders" or for a fixed term (e.g., three years). * Industrial dispute resolutions follow a legal process involving the filing of claims, presentation of evidence, and adjudication by the Tribunal/Court. However, there is high rate of dismissal due to the plaintiff failing to attend the court. **8. Expected Outcomes / Impact of Changes:** * **Banking Sector Appointments:** Aim to ensure efficient management and strategic direction within the respective banks. The impact of these changes will depend on the skills and experience of the appointed individuals. * **Industrial Dispute Resolutions:** Provide a legal resolution to disputes, potentially preventing further escalation. However, the high rate of dismissals suggests a need to improve access to justice for workmen and ensure their active participation in the adjudication process. The successful awarding of compensation to the plaintiff for the Punjab National Bank industrial dispute demonstrates a case of proper justice being served. **9. Conclusion:** The provided document details a series of government announcements and amendments primarily focused on personnel changes within the banking sector and the formal resolution of industrial disputes. These announcements are significant as they reflect ongoing efforts to maintain effective leadership in key financial institutions and address labor-management conflicts. The high rate of dismissal in industrial dispute cases indicate potential area for the Ministry of Labour to further address in the future to ensure proper cases are heard.

Key Entities Referenced

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Act governing industrial disputes and their resolution. Referenced multiple times throughout the document. Section 17: Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertaining to the publication of awards. Section 9: Section of the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 that specifies power conferred by clause c of subsection 3. Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970: Act related to the acquisition and transfer of banking companies. 1970 and 1980: Years associated with amendments or versions of the Nationalised Banks Management and Miscellaneous Provisions Scheme Nationalised Banks Management and Miscellaneous Provisions Scheme, 1970 and 1980: Scheme providing for the management and other provisions related to nationalized banks. Ministry of Finance: Government organization responsible for financial matters. Department of Financial Services: A department under the Ministry of Finance. Bank of Baroda: Name of a bank, appointment of Director on the Board. Punjab Sind Bank: Name of a bank, appointment of Director on the Board. Central Bank of India: Name of a bank, appointment of Director on the Board. State Bank of India Act, 1955: Act governing the State Bank of India. State Bank of India: Name of a bank, appointment of Managing Director. Canara Bank: Name of a bank, appointment of Managing Director. Punjab National Bank: Name of a bank, appointment of Managing Director. Indian Bank: Name of a bank, appointment of Managing Director. Ministry of Labour and Employment: Government organization responsible for labour and employment matters. Cent.Govt.Indus.TribunalcumLabour Court ChandigarhII: Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh II. Punjab INTUC: Punjab branch of the Indian National Trade Union Congress. Section 2A: Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 related to individual disputes. Section 10: Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 related to reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. Section 25G: Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 related to procedure for retrenchment. Rs.15000: Monthly wages of the applicant at the time of termination. Rs.7133: Amount paid to the applicant for courier services. Section 2S: Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defining 'workman'. Municipal Council, Sanaur: Name of a Municipal Council. Supreme court case Devinder Singh Vs Municipal Council Devinder Singh Vs Municipal Council, Sanaur: Name of a supreme court case that defines the meaning of workman Section 25F: Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. Section 2oo bb: Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding termination of services based on completion of contract. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd: Name of a company, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. Jasbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board: Name of court case that define legal position Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board: Name of organization court case that define legal position District Development Officer: Name of court case regarding deny the relief of reinstatement Satish Kantilal Amrelia: Name of court case regarding deny the relief of reinstatement Hemant Babruvahan Parchake versus Social Welfare Officer: Name of court case regarding compensation Rs. 3,33,000: Compensation granted to a workman. Cent.Govt.Indus.TribunalcumLabour Court, Nagpur: Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur. CSIR National Environment Engineering Research Institute NEERI: Council of Scientific and Industrial Research National Environment Engineering Research Institute. NEERI Kanrati Kamgar Sangh: Name of an association/union. BSNL: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, A Telecommunication company. Finlay Mills: Name of a mill, the General Manager Girni Kamgar Sangh: Name of a labor union representing mill workers. Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization: Name of Institute for Rural Industrialization. Railway Board: Name of a Railway Board, New Delhi. All India Guards Council: Name of Council related to Guards. IDBI Bank Ltd.: Name of a bank IDBI Bank contract Employees Association, Maharashtra: Name of an association/union of contract Employees. State Bank of Patiala: Name of a bank Since merged with State Bank of India State Bank of India: A bank where State Bank of Patiala is merged Rs.3,50,000: Agreed to pay lumpsum full and final compensation to the workman Sh. Veer Singh Central Public Work Department: Name of a government department CPWD Karamchari Union: Name of union organization. Section 2A2: Section related to filling Application in the industrial Disputes Act NALCO Limited: National Aluminium Co. Ltd, Odisha NALCO Employees Sangh: Name of union organization India Cement Limited: Name of Cement company GTC Oilfield Services Ltd.: Name of Oilfield company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. ONGC: Name of oil and natural gas company Section 25F25M: Section in the industrial Disputes Act related to services of the petitioner LIC of India: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil: Name of Oil company Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil Ravva Contract Employees Union: Name of the employees union.
Official Source Record View Original Source →
See Full Document Text
रजिस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 ससीी..जजीी..--डडीी..एएxललx..x--GससIDाा..H--11x55x00x 4422002255--226622444455 CCGG--DDLLxx--WWxG--I11D55E00x44xx22 002255--226622444455 प्राजिकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्त ाजिक WEEKLY स.ं 12] नई दिल्ल ी, मार् च 30—अप्रलै 5, 2025, िजनवार/र्त्रै 9—र्त्रै 15, 1947 No. 12] NEW DELHI, MARCH 30—APRIL 5, 2025, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 9– CHAITRA 15, 1947 इस भाग म ेंजभन्न पष्ृ ठ सख्ं य ा िी िाती ि ैजिसस ेदक यि पथृ क सकं लन के रूप म ेंरखा िा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii) PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii) भारत सरकार के मत्रं ालयों (रक्षा मत्रं ालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए साजं वजिक आििे और अजिसूर्नाएं 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) नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम् बर, 2024 का.आ. 523.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीर् च उपबंि) स्ट्कीम, 1970 और 1980 के पैरा 3 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठठत बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिचन और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 और 1980 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा (3) के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, नीर्े िी गई सारर्ी के कॉलम (2) म ें जवजनर्िचष्ट व्यजियों के स्ट्थान पर उि सारर्ी के कॉलम (3) में जवजनर्िचष्ट व्यजियों को कॉलम (1) में जवजनर्िचष्ट बैंकों के बोड च में तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगल ेआिेिों तक, जनिेिक नाजमत करती ि:ै- क्रम सं. (1) (2) (3) 1 बैंक आफ बड़़ौिा श्रीमती पावचती स ंिरम श्री मनोरंिन जमश्रा (िन्म जतजथ: 28.9.1964) 1999 GI/2025 (1363)1364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2 पंिाब एंड ससंि बैंक श्री के. पी. पटनायक श्री जववेक श्रीवास्ट्तव (िन्म जतजथ: 15.9.1967) 3 सेंरल बैंक आफ इंजडया श्रीमती र्ारुलता कर श्री मनोरंिन िाि (िन्म जतजथ: 28.5.1965) [फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I] संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi, the 12th December, 2024 S.O. 523.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and 1980, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 and 1980, the Central Government hereby nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director on the Board of the Banks specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (2) of the said table, with immediate effect and until further orders:- S. No. (1) (2) (3) 1 Bank of Baroda Smt Parvathy Sundaram Shri Manoranjan Mishra (DOB: 28.09.1964) 2 Punjab & Sind Bank Shri K. P. Patnaik Shri Vivek Srivastava (DOB: 15.09.1967) 3 Central Bank of India Smt Charulata Kar Shri Manoranjan Dash (DOB: 28.05.1965) [F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I] SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम् बर, 2024 का.आ. 524.—भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक अजिजनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की िारा 20 की उप-िारा (1) के साथ पठठत िारा 19 के खण्ड (ख) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय स्ट्ट ेट बकैं के उप प्रबंि जनिेिक श्री राम मोिन राव आमरा (िन् म जतजथ: 13.2.1968) को कायचभार ग्रिर् करने की तारीख स े तीन वर्च की अवजि के जलए अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक (एसबीआई) म ें प्रबंि जनिेिक के पि पर जनय ि करती ि।ै [फा. सं. 2/1/2024-बीओ-I] संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 18th December, 2024 S.O. 524.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rama Mohan Rao Amara (DoB: 13.02.1968), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India as Managing Director in State Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. [F. No. 2/1/2024-BO-I] SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1365 नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2025 का.आ. 525.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिनच और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करत े हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अिोक र्न्र (िन्मजतजथ 16.12.1968) कायचपालक जनिेिक, केनरा बैंक को कायचभार ग्रिर् करन े की तारीख से तीन वर्च की अवजि के जलए अथवा अगल ेआिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, पंिाब निै नल बैंक के प्रबंि जनिेिक एव ंमख् य कायचकारी अजिकारी के पि पर जनयि करती ि।ै [ई फा. स.ं 4/4(i)/2023-बीओ-I] संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 16th January, 2025 S.O. 525.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ashok Chandra (DoB: 16.12.1968), Executive Director, Canara Bank as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Punjab National Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. [eF. No. 4/4(i)/2023-BO-I] SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2025 का.आ. 526.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिनच और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करत े हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री जबनोि क मार (िन्मजतजथ 01.01.1971) कायचपालक जनििे क, पंिाब नैिनल बैंक को कायचभार ग्रिर् करने की तारीख स ेतीन वर् च की अवजि के जलए अथवा अगल े आिेिों तक, िो भी पिल े िो, इंजडयन बैंक के प्रबंि जनििे क एव ं म ख्य कायचकारी अजिकारी के पि पर जनयि करती ि।ै [ई फा. स.ं 4/4(ii)/2023-बीओ-I] संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 16th January, 2025 S.O. 526.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, Central Government hereby appoints Shri Binod Kumar (DoB: 01.01.1971), Executive Director, Punjab National Bank as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of his assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. [eF. No. 4/4(ii)/2023-BO-I] SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy. ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2025 का.आ. .—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc uS”kuy cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kts dks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V औद्योगिक1366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (03/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/15/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 27 March, 2025 S.O. 527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen. [No. L-12012/15/2014- IR(B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH (Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant). ID No.03/2014 Registered on:-22.04.2014 Sh. Sham Lal S/o Sh. Pala Ram, C/o Sh. R. K Singh Parmar, Working President Punjab INTUC, 211-L, Village Brari, PO Pratap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar, Punjab. -------- Applicant Versus Punjab National Bank, Regional Collection Cetnre, 2nd Floor, Railway Raod, Jalandhar City, Punjab. ----Management Present:- Ms. Rana Ghuman, AR for applicant. Sh. Anshul Pareek, AR for management. Award : 18.02.2025 Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/15/2014 (IR(B-II)) Dated 04.04.2014, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ID Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:- “Whether action of termination of service of Sh. Sham Lal w.e.f. 01.10.2013 by the management of Punjab national Bank, Jalandhar is legal, just and valid? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?” 1. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the he served w.e.f. 01.01.1993 to 30.09.2013 with the management as Cheque Collector and used to collect and deliver the daily dak and cheques in the branch offices as directed by the management. On 01.10.2013, the applicant reported for duty as usual but denied to duty and was told verbally that in his place, management had engaged new hand and his services are not required henceforth without giving him in writing. The management had recommended time and again to continue the applicant in service along with the others to the Head office as according to the branch office, his services were required and his work and conduct was quite satisfactory and there was no complaint against the work and conduct of the applicant. The applicant was drawing Rs.15000/- per month as wages on the date of his termination. The salary was paid to the applicant in his bank account by the management. Neither charge- sheet was served, nor any show cause notice and inquiry was held against the applicant, which is against the provisions of natural justice. The management had retained juniors to the applicant in service and who are[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1367 continuing in service in violation of Section 25-G of the ID Act. The applicant had rendered more than 240 days in each completed year of service proceeding the date of termination. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the applicant. It is maintained that termination is illegal, void and bad in law and it is prayed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. Notice of the claim petition was also given to the management, who filed reply thereof, maintaining therein that the present reference is without jurisdiction on the ground that the present matter does not all fall within the ambit of Section 2-A of the ID Act. It is denied that the applicant was serving w.e.f.24.09.1992 as cheque collector with the management. The services of the applicant were utilized purely on need basis for providing courier service at Regional Processing Centre, Jalandhar (hereinafter called as RPC), at a consolidated mutually agreed amount of Rs.7133/-, which was increased later in view of the price rise. The arrangement was made locally by the incumbent of RPC. The persons providing the courier services were being paid auto rickshaw charges for the purpose. Different persons were providing services as courier during the past at agreed rates. No records of such persons have been maintained by the management. The applicant was told around the middle of August by the incumbent of the RPC to bring auto rickshaw as was agreed by him, the applicant showed his inability to do so. Accordingly, his contract was not renewed further. Thus it was the voluntary decision of the applicant to discontinue the arrangement. It is also submitted that the non renewal of the contract does not amount to retrenchment. There was no question of recommending the name of applicant to the head office or to any other office. It was upto the incumbent of RPC to make arrangement for collection of cheques from branch and return of the same with whosoever was prepared to render the service at the agreed rates. There was no need of serving charge-sheet, show cause notice or conducting inquiry against the applicant or paying him retrenchment compensation, earned leave, medical leave or deduction of EPF and there was no question of violation of Section 25-G of the ID Act as the applicant was not in the employment of the management and no employer-employee relationship ever existed between respondent and management. It is prayed that the reference be dismissed with cost. Evidence of the parties:- 3. In order to prove case, applicant filed his affidavit WW1 along with documents W1 (statement of account) and W2 (identity card) and closed his evidence on 03.07.2019. Thereafter, respondent have examined Sh. Vijay Kumar Asija, Senior Manager, Circle Office, Jalandhar as MW1, who tendered his affidavit as MW1/A and thereafter, ld. counsel for management closed evidence on 09.09.2019 on behalf of management and the matter was fixed for arguments. Submissions of Applicant: 4. While arguing the case, ld. counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was working as cheque collector since 01.01.1993 till 30.09.2013. He reported on 01.10.2013, but was told verbally not to continue with the management and at that time, he was drawing salary of Rs.15000/- per month, which was paid in his bank account. He also contended that this fact has been even admitted by the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that the contractor of applicant was not renewed as he has not brought auto rickshaw, in which he was doing courier work. Applicant has also placed on record passbook Ex.W1 and ID card Ex.W2, which proves that he was in the service of management and was retrenched without retrenchment of compensation. Ld. counsel for applicant placed on record written arguments. Submissions of Respondents: 5. On the other hand. ld. counsel for respondent contended that in this case, workman was serving w.e.f. 01.01.1993 as cheque collector with the bank management and he used to collect and deliver the daily dak till 30.09.2013. His services were utilized purely on need basis and initially he was paid Rs.7133/- per month, which was increased from time to time. When he was asked to bring auto rickshaw, for which payment was being made to the applicant, applicant showed his inability, accordingly, his contract was not renewed, thus it was the voluntary decision of the applicant to discontinue his contract. Hence, the case of the applicant does not fall under Section 2A of the ID Act. Management has also placed on record written arguments prepared by ld. counsel for management. 6. I have given due consideration to the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. Findings: 7. First this Tribunal is to decide is whether the applicant comes within the definition of "workman" as is defined in Section 2(S) of the Act. It is mentioned here that applicant was in service of bank w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and continuously worked till 30.09.2013 as cheque collector. In plain words the claimant was performing his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only administrative post requiring him to perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(S)1368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh V/s Municipal Council, Sanaur AlR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:- "The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms and 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 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 plain 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 causal employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.” 8. Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time or part time or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in employee plain language of Section 2(S) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed 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. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion, the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(S) of the Act. 9. The payment of salary by the management is admitted by the respondent in its written statement as well as in the affidavit of filed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Asija, Senior Manager, Circle Office, Jalandhar, wherein he categorically stated that workman worked on different dates as mentioned in his affidavit and was paid initially Rs. 7133/- per month, which was increased from time to time. As per applicant, he was retrenched from service on 01.10.2013. If we take one year prior to 01.10.2013 as stated by the respondent, then he had completed 240 days in the preceding year as per written statement filed by respondent in this case. 10. Admittedly, the respondent is an industry and there was non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman has already been able to prove that he worked continuously for a period of 240 days prior to his termination of his services by respondent on 01.10.2013 as he was receiving regular wages from 1993 till 2013 is proven as per statement of workman WW1. It is added here that the applicant worked as cheque collector w.e.f. 01.01.1993. Admittedly, in this case, applicant was not paid retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the ID Act. As per own case of the respondent, the contract of workman was not renewed. The said argument of the ld. counsel for the respondent is not having any force as respondent has failed to produce on record any document showing that workman was engaged on the basis of some contract. Attracting his retrenchment on the basis of completion of contract as per Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act. 11. Admittedly, there is violation of Section 25-F of the Act and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.Vs Man Singh,_2012(1)_SCT 641, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement has to be given as a matter of right. Reliance can also be placed upon Jasbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009(3) SCT 790, under which it has been held that in the legal position and the Court had recent past, there had been a shift in consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may he wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation, even though termination Of an employee was in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement was held to be the prudent relief to meet the ends of justice. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as District Development Officer & Anr. V/s Satish Kantilal Amrelia, Civil Appeal Nos. 19857-19858 of 2017; decided on 28 November , 2017 has held as follow: "that the reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious, It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstatement such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose". In view of above discussed above workman entitled for compensation as he was working on temporary basis intermittently.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1369 12. Learned counsel for the workman has also argued that for rendering one year service workman should be granted Rs.1 lac per year and since the workman has worked for about 20 years and therefore compensation of Rs.20 lac be awarded to the workman in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts. 13. It is added here that in the present case workman has intermittently worked for about 20 years as cheque collector as is itself stated by the respondent and keeping in view the above discussed circumstances and case law titled as Hemant Babruvahan Parchake versus Social Welfare Officer, Somalwar Bhavan, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur and others 201 (4) AIR BomR 781, wherein for 18 months, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted as compensation, workman is granted Rs. 3,33,000/- as compensation. 14. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication. KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 ekpZ, 2025 का.आ. 528.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार जनिेिक, सीएसआईआर - राष्ट्रीय पयावच रर् इंिीजनयररंग अनस िं ान सस्ट्ं थान (नीरी), निे रू माग,च विा च रोड, नागपर , के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजर्व, नीरी कंत्रजत कामगार सघं , नागपर , के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपर , पर्ं ाट (सिं भ च सख्ं या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2024) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-76-आईआर (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025 S.O. 528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2024) 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 The Director, CSIR – National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nehru Marg, Wardha Road, Nagpur, and The General Secretary, NEERI Kanrati Kamgar Sangh,Nagpur, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025. [No. L-42025-07-2025-76-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2024 Date: 05.03.2025. Party No.1: The Director, CSIR – National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nehru Marg, Wardha Road, Nagpur - 440020 V/s. Party No.2: The General Secretary, NEERI Kanrati Kamgar Sangh, Madhugandh’ 5/2, Somvari Peth, Budhvar Bazar Road, In Front of ESIC Hospital, Nagpur - 4400201370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD (Dated: 05th March, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) 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 CISR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur and their workmen, for adjudication, as per letter No. 24(56)/2023-IR dated 11.01.2024, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur through its Director in terminating the contract workers from their job through contractors on attaining the age of 60 years without giving notice even though they are healthy is legal and justified in the eye of law or not? If not, what relief the workmen of the union are entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that notices to the General Secretary NEERI and Director CSIR- National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) have been served but after service of notices, both the parties are not present since very beginning of the case. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till date. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to establish his claim. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the management of CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur through its Director in terminating the contract workers from their job through contractors on attaining the age of 60 years without giving notice even though they are healthy is legal and justified in the eye of law. The workmen do not entitled to any relief. Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 ekpZ, 2025 का.आ. 529.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार उप मिाप्रबिं क, बीएसएनएल, प्रिान मिाप्रबिं क, िरू सर्ं ार, िीरो माइल्स, नागपर ; उप मडं ल अजभयतं ा, बीएसएनएल, प्रिान अजभयतं ा, िीरो माइल्स, नागपर , के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री अिय, कामगार,के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िचष्ट केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपर ,पर्ं ाट(सिं भ च सख्ं या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/35/2016-17) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. ,y - 40012/21/2016- vkbZ vkj (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025 S.O. 529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case CGIT/NGP/35/2016-17) 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 The Dy. General Manager, BSNL, O/o Principal General Manager, Telecom, Zero Miles, Nagpur ;The Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, O/o Principal Engineer, Zero Miles, Nagpur, and Shri Ajay, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025. [No. L-40012/21/2016- IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/35/2016-17 Date: 13.03.2025. Party No.1: 1) The Dy. General Manager, BSNL, O/o Principal General Manager, Telecom,[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1371 Zero Miles, Nagpur. 2) The Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, O/o Principal Engineer, Zero Miles, Nagpur. V/s. Party No.2: Sh. Ajay S/o Arun Sonwane r/o Plot No. 26, Uttam Nagar, Gorewada Road, Nagpur - 13 AWARD (Dated: 13th March, 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 BSNL, Nagpur through its Dy. General Manager (Administration) & Sub Divisional Engineer and their workman Shri Ajay s/o Arun Sonwane for adjudication, as per letter No. L-40012/21/2016 (IR(DU)) dated 01.03.2017, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Nagpur through its Dy. General Manager (Administration) & Sub Divisional Engineer, in terminating the services of workman namely Sh. Ajay s/o Arun Sonwane r/o Nagpur w.e.f. 01.01.2009 is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent is present before the Court. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 29/10/2020. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively but no evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim till date. Petitioner is not appearing before the Court since long back. 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 action of the management of BSNL, Nagpur through its Dy. General Manager (Administration) & Sub Divisional Engineer, in terminating the services of workman namely Sh. Ajay s/o Arun Sonwane r/o Nagpur w.e.f. 01.01.2009 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 ekpZ, 2025 का.आ. 530.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मिाप्रबिं क, दफनल े जमल्स, अमरावती रोड, अर्लपर , अमरावती, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सजर्व, जगरनी कामगार सघं , सि जवलास बी र्ावरे, मिारािपर ा, अर्लपर , अमरावती, के बीर् अनब ंि म ें जनर्िचष्ट केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपर , पर्ं ाट (सिं भ च सख्ं या (Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/2021-22) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. ,y - 42011/73/2022- vkbZ vkj (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025 S.O. 530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case CGIT/NGP/34/2021-22) 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 The General Manager, Finlay Mills, Amravati Road, Achalpur, Amravati, and The Secretary,1372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Girni Kamgar Sangh, C/o Vilas B. Chavre, Mahirabpura, Achalpur, Amravati , which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025. [No. L-42011/73/2022- IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/2021-22 Date: 06.03.2025. Party No.1: The General Manager, Finlay Mills, Amravati Road, Achalpur, Amravati – 444805. V/s. Party No.2: The Secretary, Girni Kamgar Sangh, C/o Vilas B. Chavre, Mahirabpura, Achalpur, Amravati – 444806. AWARD (Dated: 06th February, 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 Finlay Mills, Achalpur, District Amravati, Maharashtra and their workman through Girni Kamgar Sangh, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/73/2022 (IR(DU)) dated 16.03.2022, with the following schedule:- “Whether the demands of Girni Kamgar Sangh, Amravati vide letter dated 30.04.2021 against the management of Finlay Mills, Achalpur, District Amravati, Maharashtra for opening of Finlay Mills and payment of salary/wages without deduction to the workers are proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the Union is entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 05/08/2022. One application dated 28/04/2022 has been moved by the respondent for grant of permission to engage legal practitioner on behalf of the respondent but none is present to press this application today in the Court. Hence this application is hereby rejected being not pressed. Despite of several opportunities given to the petitioner for filing statement of claim, petitioner is failed to file his statement of claim till date. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not attending the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The demands of Girni Kamgar Sangh, Amravati vide letter dated 30.04.2021 against the management of Finlay Mills, Achalpur, District Amravati, Maharashtra for opening of Finlay Mills and payment of salary/wages without deduction to the workers are improper, illegal and unjustified. The workman/Union is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 ekpZ, 2025 का.आ. 531.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार जनिेिक, मिात्मा गािं ी ग्रामीर् औद्योजगकीकरर् सस्ट्ं थान, मगनवाड़ी, रामनगर, पवनार, विा च (एम.एस.), के[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1373 प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वासि ेव अरुर्राव साटोन, कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, नागपर ,पर्ं ाट(सिं भ च सख्ं या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/39/2013-14) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. ,y - 42012/29/2013-आईआर (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 27th March, 2025 S.O. 531—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Case CGIT/NGP/39/2013-14) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization, Maganwadi, Ramnagar, Pavnar, Wardha (M.S), and Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27.03.2025. [No. L-42012/29/2013-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/39/2013-14 Date: 28.02.2025. Party No.1: The Director, Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization, Maganwadi, Ramnagar, Pavnar, Wardha (MS) – 442001. V/s. Party No.2: Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone Ward No. 2, At & PO: Pavnar, Wardha (MS) -442001/ AWARD (Dated: 28th February, 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 Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization and their workman, Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42012/29/2013-IR (DU) dated 12.07.2013, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization Wardha in terminating the services of Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone from 21.12.2011 from the post of Attendant is just fair & Legal? To what relief the applicant is entitled to?” 2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. In regard to which the petitioner/claimant filed statement of claim and management filed written statement. 3. Today the case called out. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Gargee Bhai holding for Advocate Aathle is present before the court. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the court. Petitioner is not responding and attending the court since 15.05.2020 i.e. from last five years. Petitioner has filed rejoinder. From perusal of record it is also apparent that petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come to the court to prove the contentions of the affidavit as well as the contentions of the statement of claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. As the petitioner is not coming to the court it appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case and do not want to proceed with the reference, so it is closed. The case of the petitioner is not proved.1374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the management of Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization Wardha in terminating the services of Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone from 21.12.2011 from the post of Attendant is just fair & Legal. The applicant Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone is not entitled to any relief. (Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 532.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lca ) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a20@2014-15 ) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 41011/64/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.20/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Railway Board their workmen. [No. L-41011/64/2014- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/20/2014-15 Date: 06.03.2025. Party No.1: The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. V/s. Party No.2: Shri S.K. Shukla, Executive Vice President, All India Guards Council, 69-R.P.T.S. Road, Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015. AWARD (Dated: 06th February, 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 Railway Board, New Delhi and their workmen, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/64/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 01.09.2014, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying in granting grade pay to Traffic Running Staff, is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. One order has been passed by this Court on 19/11/2019, in which, authority is directed to adduce the documents on record but after 19/11/2019 neither petitioner nor respondent is responding and attending the Court. Respondent has not placed the documents on record till date. Simultaneously,[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1375 petitioner is not coming to the Court to contest the case. Although petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the claim petition. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying in granting grade pay to Traffic Running Staff, is just fair & legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. (Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 533.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds dedZ kjk s ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (42@2011-12) idz kf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/38/2011-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.42/2011-12) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra their workmen. [No. L-12012/38/2011- IR(B-II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/42/2011-12 Date: 03.03.2025 Party No.1: The Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Region, Lahanuji Nagar, Near Atul Mangal Karlaya Amravati V/s. Party No.2: Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath Gudadhe, R/o At and Post – Chandrapur Tehsil – Daryapur, District - Amravati AWARD (Dated: 03rd March, 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 Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Branch and their workman, Shri. Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath fudadhe for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/38/2011 (IR(B-II)) dated 23.01.2012, with the following schedule:-1376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] “Whether the action of management of Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Branch is proper & justified in terminating the service of Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath fudadhe w.e.f. 01.04.2009 in spite of completion of 240 days in a year without observing the procedure laid down under Sec. 25-F of the ID Act,? What relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 20/03/2020. Only on 06/12/2021 and 28/12/2021 Counsel for the management was present but petitioner was still not present on that dates. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has also filed an affidavit in support of his contents alleged in statement of claim. It is also alleged that party no. 2, workman was never been appointed as Part Time Sub Staff on permanent basis. Therefore, question does not arise for termination of his service, either orally or in writing. It is submitted that he was engaged as Part Time Sub Staff. Party no. 2 was engaged on temporary basis and as such on completion of the temporary work, his services are automatically comes to an end. Party no. 2 has not even completed more than 240 days continuous service with the bank during period of 12 months preceding the date of termination. Therefore he is not entitled for reinstatement in service but contrary to it, it is alleged by the petitioner that he worked at Chandikapur Branch of Bank of Maharashtra as part time sub staff from 11/04/2007 to April 2009. He has also alleged that there was a permanent vacancy of part time sub staff at Chandikapur Branch and appointed as permanent staff. It is also alleged that he has joined this duty from 02/02/2008 and his name was entered on Muster roll after the name of one Shri. Swarge. It is also alleged that due to his experience in the bank working from 01/07/2007 to 31/01/2008 and after his name sponsored through employment exchange and subsequent selection after due interview, he was appointed in the bank from 01/02/2008 to fill in permanent vacancy of part time sub staff. But in his cross examination witness Shri. Rajesh has stated that he worked at Chandikapur Branch of Bank of Maharashtra during period from 01/07/2007 to 01/04/2009 i.e. near about one year & nine months but he has admitted that in his representation Exhibit W-XII does not show the acknowledgement of any of the authority of the Bank in acknowledgement of receipt of the same. He has also admitted in his cross examination that it is a fact that Exhibit W-III is an office order regarding his temporary appointment as PTS from 04/10/2007 to 30/10/2007. It is a fact that in Exhibit W-III, it has been mentioned that after 30/10/2007, his engagement will be terminated automatically. It is a fact that in Exhibit W-IX also, it has been mentioned that he was appointed as waiting PTS. He has admitted that it is true to say that on the date of filing his statement of claim he had already crossed the age of 33 years. From perusal of evidence adduced by both the parties it is apparent that workman Mr. Rajesh has clearly admitted in his cross examination that he worked with party no. 01, Bank at their Chandikapur Branch for the period from 04/10/2007 to 30/10/2007. Learned Counsel for the management has stated in his written notes of argument that one Gyneshwar Mahadeorao Nimkar of Tarapur quarreled with him. The factual position was that party no. 02 demanded Rs.500/- from Gyneshwar Mahadeorao Nimkar towards collection and payment of cheque under Indira Awas Gharkul Yojana, thereafter, lodged a police complaint against party no. 02. Thereafter the preliminary enquiry was conducted against party no. 02 and he was found guilty. Due to such action of party no. 02 he tried to spoil the image of the Bank and Bank lost confidence in him. Party no. 02 was not permanent employee. There was no necessity to issue him notice of 30 days or notice pay in lieu of notice and other compensation, as contemplated under Section 25-F of ID Act. Party no 01 has filed his evidence on affidavit, however, the witness of the management was not cross examined by the party no. 02 and as such the submission of the party no. 01 went unchallenged. Petitioner, party no. 02 himself has admitted that his employment was temporary. It is also admitted by him that after 30/10/2007 his engagement/appointment will be terminated automatically. He had already crossed the age of 33 years. He is unable to establish that he has worked for 240 days continuously uninterrupted and his appointment was regular appointment in lieu of permanent vacancy of Part Time Sub Staff. Therefore, there is no need of termination of his services either orally or in writing. He was engaged on temporary basis and such on completion of the temporary work his services are automatically comes to an end. Petitioner has not given any other evidence to establish his claim. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. In view of the above, party no. 02 is not entitled for reinstatement and back wages as he is in gainful employment. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of management of Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Branch is proper & justified in terminating the service of Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath fudadhe w.e.f. 01.04.2009 in spite of completion of 240 days in a year without observing the procedure laid down under Sec. 25-F of the ID Act. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1377 नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 534.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a19/2014-15) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 41011/63/2014-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Railway Board their workmen. [No. L-41011/63/2014- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/2014-15 Date: 06.03.2025. Party No.1: The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. V/s. Party No.2: Shri S.K. Shukla, Executive Vice President, All India Guards Council, 69-R.P.T.S. Road, Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015. AWARD (Dated: 06th February, 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 Railway Board, New Delhi and their workmen, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/63/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 01.09.2014, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying additional allowance to Passenger Guard, is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. One order has been passed by this Court on 19/11/2019, in which, authority is directed to adduce the documents on record but after 19/11/2019 neither petitioner nor respondent is responding and attending the Court. Respondent has not placed the documents on record till date. Simultaneously, petitioner is not coming to the Court to contest the case. Although petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the claim petition. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi in denying additional allowance to Passenger Guard, is just fair & legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer1378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 535.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds dedZ kjk s ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (18/2014-15) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y -41011/62/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.18/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Railway Board their workmen. [No. L-41011/62/2014- IR (B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/18/2014-15 Date: 06.03.2025. Party No.1: The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. V/s. Party No.2: 1) The General Secretary, All India Railwaymen Men’s Federation, New Delhi. 2) The Office Secretary, National Federation of Indian Railwaymen, 3,Chelmsford Road, New Delhi-110055. 3) Shri S.K. Shukla, Executive Vice President, All India Guards Council, 69-R.P.T.S. Road, Surendra Nagar, Nagpur-440015. AWARD (Dated: 06th February, 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 Railway Board, New Delhi and their workmen, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/62/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 01.09.2014, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of Railway Board, New Delhi in denying the claim of Union of All India Guards Council, Nagpur for fixing Millage rates paid to running staff working Indian Railways as per recommendation of Bhalla Committee is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the running staff is entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. One order has been passed by this Court on 19/11/2019, in which, authority is directed to adduce the documents on record but after 19/11/2019 neither petitioner nor respondent is responding and attending the Court. Respondent has not placed the documents on record till date. Simultaneously, petitioner is not coming to the Court to contest the case. Although petitioner as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1379 not come to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the claim petition. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the management of Railway Board, New Delhi in denying the claim of Union of All India Guards Council, Nagpur for fixing Millage rates paid to running staff working Indian Railways as per recommendation of Bhalla Committee is just fair & legal. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. (Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 536.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a08/2020-21) idz kf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y 12011/13/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 536—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2020-21) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of IDBI Bank Ltd. their workmen. [No. 12011/13/2020- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/08/2020-21 Date: 06.03.2025. Party No.1: 1) The Executive Director, IDBI Bank Ltd, Head Office, IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 440005 2) The General Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd, Zonal Office, Salasar Prestige, 1st Floor, Plot No. 1/A, WHC Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur – 440010. V/s. Party No.2: The General Secretary, IDBI Bank contract Employee’s Association, Maharashtra, Chandrakant Dhuru Wadi, V.S. Marg, Agar, Bazar, R.No. 7, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028. AWARD (Dated: 06th March, 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 IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai and their workmen, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12011/13/2020 (IR(B-I)) dated 16.07.2020, with the following schedule:—1380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] “Whether the demand of Union IDBI Bank Contract Employee’s Association, Maharashtra, for regularization of 35 workers (list enclosed) working with management of IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since long back i.e. 13/07/2021. From Perusal of record, it is apparent that after registration of the case, notices have been sent to the parties. After service of notices, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner but some time Counsel for the respondent has come to the Court. Petitioner as well as respondent have not filed their respective statement of claim and written statement. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The demand of Union IDBI Bank Contract Employee’s Association, Maharashtra, for regularization of 35 workers (list enclosed) working with management of IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai, is illegal and unjustified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. (Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 537.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1a 947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (a06/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/92/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiala their workmen. [No. L-12012/92/2012- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam. ID No.06/2015 Registered On: 05.05.2015 Veer Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Ram, C/o Office BMS, HE 1232, Phase-1, Mohali, Distt-Mohali, Mohali (Chandigarh). ...........Workman Versus Assistant General Manager-I(P), State Bank of Patiala, Branch Zonal Office, Patiala (Punjab). ........Management[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1381 AWARD Passed On: 05.02.2025 1. The present case had arisen on a reference dated 30.04.2015 received from Ministry of Labour Government of India as follows: Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/92/2012-IR(B-I) dated 30.04.2015, 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), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:- “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in terminating the services of Shri Veer Singh w.e.f. 20.4.11 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to” 2. During the hearing of the present case a settlement was arrived between the workman Sh. Veer Singh and the management of State Bank of Patiala (Since merged with State Bank of India) on 25.09.2024 and as per said settlement management had agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) as lump-sum full and final compensation subject to approval by the competent authority. Since, settlement on 25.09.2024 the case was pending for due approval from the competent authority which has been finally done. Today a bank demand draft No.452759 dated 03.02.2025 issued by State Bank of India, RBO-3, Patiala for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) has been submitted before this Court, which has been received by the workman Sh. Veer Singh personally. In token of presenting the draft by the Management and receiving the same by the workman short statements of Sh. Rajesh Mishra (Deputy Manager) for Management and Sh. Veer Singh (Workman) is also taken down and same has been kept on record. 3. Since the matter is settled now there remains nothing to be decided on merit and therefore the present Industrial Dispute arisen out of Reference No. L-12012/92/2012-IR(B-I) dated 30.04.2015 stands disposed off in terms of settlement between the parties. 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 नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 538.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj केंरीय लोक जनमार्च जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; -II ds iapkV (a279/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-42] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 279/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. - II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work Department and their workmen. [No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-1)-42] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI ID No. 279/2021 Sh. Mohan Prakash vs. C.P.W.D. Sh. Mohan Prakash Singh, S/o Sh. Rati Ram Singhal, Through- The president Sh. Hukum Chand, CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No.-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. …Applicant/Claimant1382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Versus 1. The Director General, Central Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 2. The Director of Personal, P.W.D., 12th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D. H.Q.) I.T.O., New Delhi-110002. …Managements/respondents Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: None for the claimant. For Managements/ Respondents: Sh. Lalit Mohan, representative for the management. Item No.- 31 I.D. No. 279/2021 13th February 2025 Present: None for the claimant. Sh. Lalit Mohan, UDC for management. The representative present on behalf of the management has produced the documents in regard to the contract for the year 2017-18 for providing services of Data Entry Operators, messengers, Staff car drivers, M.T.S. etc., which was awarded to Sh. Kuldeep Kumar. He submits that the claimant was engaged through the contractor only for a year. Thereafter, a regular driver from the department replaced him. Record perused. The claimant had moved an application U/s 2-A of I.D. Act, 1947 submitting that he had worked for Director General C.P.W.D. and Director of personal (P.W.D.). He further submitted that he had requested the management to regularize his services, but the management got annoyed with the request and terminated his services. On 02.09.2024, AR for the claimant had admitted upon enquiry that the claimant’s salary used to be paid through the contractor. However, he didn’t implead the contractor in this matter. Considering the fact that the claimant has not appeared thereafter to pursue his claim, the matter stands dismissed due to lack of prosecution. The award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. The file is consigned to record room. ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer Dated 13.02.2025 नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 539.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनस रर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स स पी.एस.एच.एल.टी. (क ट्रां ेक्टर); भबु नश्वे री ओएसपी ऑफ़ एमसीएल के प्रबिं तंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िोबबदां गिररअ के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, भबु नश्वे र, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 22/2017) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ेंदिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती ि ैिो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-20] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1383 cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s P.S.H.L.T. (Contractor); Bhubaneswari OSP of MCL and Shri Gobinda Tiria which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-20] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR Present: Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 22/2017 Date of Passing Order – 24th December, 2024 Between :- 1. The Manager, M/s. P.S.H.L.T. (Contractor), At./Po. Dera, Talcher, Dist. Angul, Odisha. 2. The General Manager, Bhubaneswari OCP of MCL, At./Po. Dera, Talcher, Dist. Angul (Odisha). … 1st Party-Managements. (And) Gobinda Tiria, At./Po. Gobara, P.S. Bikrampur, Talcher, Angul, Odisha. … Applicant-Workman. Appearances: None. … For the 1st Party-Managements. None. … For the Applicant-Workman. ORDER The applicant-workman has filed an application under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein- after referred as an act). 2. The case of the applicant-workman as per his statement of claim is as follows:- He had worked for more than 13 years as a high skilled worker as an Heavy Vehicle Driver uninterruptedly and continuously under the direct control of the Management No. 2 through vendor contractor. His work was being supervised by the officials of the Management No. 2. He was getting less wages than the minimum wages prescribed from time to time. He was never paid bonus throughout his service period although he was legally entitled to. The 1st Party-Management No. 1 was always irregular in making payment to him. The Managements always reluctant to provide minimum facilities. He had insisted for payment of wages at par with counterpart on regular roll, the 1st Party-Management No. 2 illegally and arbitrarily retrenched him on dated 14.06.2016 without giving any prior notice and retrenchment benefits. He raised a dispute before the labour machinery and when the conciliation proceeding was delayed, he preferred the present application under section 2-A(2) of the Act. He has prayed for direction to the Managements to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other benefits applicable under law. 3. The 1st Party-Management No. 2 appeared and filed its written statement denying entire averments of the applicant-workman.1384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The 1st Party-Management No. 2 in its written statement has taken a stand that the present case is not maintainable in law more particularly against them. There is no relationship of employer and employee between them and with the applicant-workman. The applicant was never recruited through any recruitment process and no appointment letter was issued. The Management No. 2 never paid any wages to the applicant workman directly as he was the employee of the contractor. The Management No. 2 has also submitted that the contractor Management No. 1. The Management no. 1 has not appeared and has not filed any written statement in this case. 4. Applicant-workman is asked to prove his case. However, despite providing a number of opportunities, applicant-workman has not turned up to prove his claim. As the applicant-workman has not turned up for proving his case, his claim stands dismissed. 5. Order is passed accordingly. 6. A copy of this order is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947. File is consigned to record room. Dictated & Corrected by me. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 540.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स स न लको गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और न लको एम्प्ल इज सघां के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, भुबनश्वे र, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 03/2019) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक में दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल -43011/03/2018-आईआर(एम)] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 03/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s NALCO Limited and NALCO Employees Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. L-43011/03/2018-IR(M)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR Present: Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt, Bhubaneswar. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 03/2019 Date of Passing Order – 24th December, 2024 Between :- The General Manager (S&P), M/s. NALCO Ltd., P.O. Nalco Nagar, District – Angul (Odisha) – 759 145 … 1st Party-Management.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1385 (And) The General Secretary, Nalco Employees Sangh, Post – Nalco Nagar, District – Angul, (Odisha) – 759 145. … 2nd Party-Union. Appearances: None. … For the 1st Party-Management. None. … For the 2nd Party-Union. ORDER In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-43011/03/2018 – IR(M), dated 21.12.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, under the following schedule:- “Whether the enquiry proceeding by the management of National Aluminium Co. Ltd., Odisha against the workman Shri Krushna Singh Junka is vitiated? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute. 3. Despite directions so given, no statement of claim is received from the 2nd party-Union. 4. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2nd Party-Union on 21.01.2020, 16.03.2020, 03.04.2023 and lastly on dated 08.05.2023 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2nd Party-Union, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served upon the 2nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2nd Party-Union opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2nd Party-Union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits. 5. Since the 2nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management. 6. In view of such, no claim Order is passed by this Tribunal. 7. Let this order be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication. Dictated & Corrected by me. DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 541.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स स इांगडय सीमटें गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वीरभद्र्प के बीर् अनब िं म ेंजनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हदै र ब द, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 63/2014) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ैिो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल -29011/65/2013-आईआर(एम)] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 63/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in1386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] relation to M/s India Cement Limited and Shri Veerabhadrappa which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. L-29011/65/2013-IR(M] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 22nd day of January, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 63/2014 Between: Sri Veerabhadrappa Vill. & Post: Karankote, Tandur-Mandal, Ranga Reddy-dist. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. India Cements Ltd. Malkapur, Tandur-Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Dist.- …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Ch. Shyam Sunder Rao, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Niranjan Rao, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-29011/65/2013 (IR(M)) dated 29.07.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. India Cements Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, India Cements Ltd., Malakapur, Ranga Reddy- Dist. And their contractors in terminating the service of Sri Veerabhadrappa and Sri Sridhar Gaud (contract workers) is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to?’ The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 63/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. In the present matter. The claim statement was filed by the petitioner to challenge his termination order from service by the Respondent. Although petitioner has filed chief statement affidavit of the witness but witness was not produce for cross examination. In the absence of cross examination the evidence of witness is revenant & admissible. Thus the claim of the petitioner is not substainted any evidence. Therefore, “No-Claim” Award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 22nd day of January, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1387 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 542.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार जीटीसी ऑयलफिल्ड सर्वसस जे गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री य सीन अहमद के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हदै र ब द, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 29/2024) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-23] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to GTC Oilfield Services Limited and Sri Yasin Ahmad which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-23] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 17th day of February, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29/2024 Between: Shri Yasin Ahmed, Crane Operrator, Madansing Petal Jampet, Rajahmundry, East Godavari, Andra Pradesh-533101. ..….Petitioner AND GTC Oilfiled Services Ltd., Rep by Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Project Coordinator, Srinija Shelters, Door No. 80-4-12, Room No.501, Sai Nagar, JN Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari-533103. …Respondents1388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Sri C. Sridhar, advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/17/2024-B1 dated 29.05.2024 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s GTC Oilfiled Services Ltd.,and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of GTC Oilfiled Services Ltd., Rajahmundry in terminating the services of its workman Shri Yasin Ahmed, Ex-Crane operator Rajahmundry is justified or not? It not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 29/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Notice sent by petitioner at his given address. It seems petitioner don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the absence of claim statement by petitioner ‘No-Claim’ Award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of February, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 543.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स च ऑयल एंड नर्े र ल गसै कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (ओएनिीसी); मसे स च साई बालािी लॉजिजस्ट्टक्स के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और क रजत श्रीजनवास के बीर् अन बंि म ेंजनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एव ंश्रम न्यायालय, ििै राबाि, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 3/2022) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ैिो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. िडे -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-24] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1389 New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 3/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC); M/s Sai Balaji Logistics, and Kurati Srinivas which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025- IR (M)-24] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 10th day of February, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 3/2022 Between: Kurati Srinivas, Aged about 37 years, S/o Veeraju, D.No. 4-2-3/1, Occ: Truck Driver, Y.N.K.V. Hall Veedhi, Narsapuram-534275. ..….Petitioner AND 1. M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) Represented by its Excutive Director,’ Base Complex, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist-533106. 2. M/s Sai Balaji Logistics, Represented by its proprietor, Mini Truck Contractor, 3-7-7- Ramnagar, Nidadavolu, Dist-534301. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner: T. Koteswara Rao, Advocate For the Respondent: K. Venumadhava, Advocate AWARD Sri Kurati Srinivas, who worked as Truck Driver (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents No. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 06.06.2021, as the same is violative of section 25F/25M of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service of 2nd Respondent, or with any other contractor came in the place of the 2nd Respondent by virtual change in the contract with all consequential benefits including the continuity of the service of back wages till reinstatement into service and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner absent. Respondent refused to adduce any evidence. Perused the record. Present claim statement has been filed by petitioner challenged his termination order dated 06.06.2021 passed by respondent as the same being in violative of section 25F of ID act. Although petitioner has filed the affidavit of WW1 in evidence but despite sufficient opportunity could not produce the witness for cross examination. No other evidence has been1390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] adduce by the petitioner in support of averment of claim statement. Therefore the claim of petitioner is not found substantiated by any evidence. Hence, ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of February, 2024. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 544.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री डी. रमिे के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, ििै राबाि, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 56/2014) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ैिो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल-17012/45/2013-आईआर(एम)] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 56/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri D. Ramesh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. L-17012/45/2013- IR (M)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 21st day of January, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2014 Between: Shri D. Ramesh S/o Venkateswara Rao, D.No. 13-17, Kaza Post, M.M. Palli, Movva (M), Krishna District. ..….Petitioner[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1391 AND 1. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Officer, Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam(AP). 2. The Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Officer, Kennedy Road, Machilipatnam (AP). …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Shri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Venkatesh dixit, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/45/2013 (IR(M)) dated 04.03.2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s LIC of India, and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the removal from service of Shri D. Ramesh, Ex-Temp. Class-IV, LIC of India, Machilipatnam Divisional Office w.e.f. 21.1.2013, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 56/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner has filed the memo to withdraw the present ID case stating that he don’t want to pursue his case. Respondent has no objection. Memo allowed. Petition is disposed of with order, “Dismissed as withdrawn”. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 21st day of January, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 545.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स च विे ातं ा जलजमटेड केयन च ऑयल; श्री वकें टेश्वर कंस्ट्रक्िन; श्री बालािी कंस्ट्रक्िन; श्री राम उद्यम; श्री डी. सत्य साईं बाबा; श्री रामन्िनये उद्यम; श्री वरजसद्दी जवनायक कंस्ट्रक्िन; वकें टलक्ष्मी उद्यम; श्री साई राम उद्यम; श्री सत्य रािा उद्यम; श्री सब्र ह्मण्यश्वे र उद्यम; श्री अिं नये एंटरप्राइििे ; श्री सप्तजगरी एंटरप्राइििे ; जिरडी एंटरप्राइििे ; श्री वकें ट सत्य ग़ौरी एंटरप्राइििे ; श्री आर एस सर क्षा; सोडेक्सो कैटररंग सर्वसच िे इंजडया प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों1392 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] और िनरल सक्रे ेटरी, रव्वा कॉन्रैक्ट एम्प्लाइि यजू नयन के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, ििै राबाि, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 44/2024) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. िेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-25] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 44/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil; Sri Venkateswara Constructions; Sri Balaji Contructions; Sri Ram enterprises; Sri D. Satya Sai Baba; Sri Ramanjaneya enterprises; Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Constructions; Venkatalaxmi enterprises; Sri Sai Rama enterprises; Sri Satya Raja enterprises; Sri Subrahmanyeswara enterprises; Sri Anjaneya Enterprises; Sri Sapthagiri Enterprises; Shirdi Enterprises; Sri Venkata Satya Gowri Enterprises; Shri R S Security; Sodexo Catering Services India Pvt. Ltd. and General Secretary, the Ravva Contract Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025- IR (M)-25] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 30th day of January, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 44/2024 Between: The General Secretary, The Ravva Contract Employees Union, D.No. 2-302, S. Yanam Post, Uppalaguptam Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema Dist.-533213. ..… .Petitioner AND 1. Sri Venkateswara Constructions, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 2. Sri Balaji Contructions, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 3. Sri Ram enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1393 4. Sri D. Satya Sai Baba, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 5. Sri Ramanjaneya enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 6. Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Constructions, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 7. Venkatalaxmi enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 8. Sri Sai Rama enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 9. Sri Satya Raja enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 10. Sri Subrahmanyeswara enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 11. Sri Anjaneya Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 12. Sri Sapthagiri Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 13. Shirdi Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213.1394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 14. Sri Venkata Satya Gowri Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 15. Shri R S Security, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. 16. Sodexo Catering Services India Pvt. Ltd. C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema Dis. 533213. …..Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Shri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent: None AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.24(34)/2024-IR dated 09.09.2024 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE 1. “Whether the demand put forth by the Union for determination of superannuation age beyond 58 years and consequential benefits for contract labour engaged through various contractors in the establishment of M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil and Gas, S. Yanam East Godavari District, Andra Pradesh is legal and justified? If not, what relief the Union is entitled to?” 2. “Whether the demand put forth by the Union for payment of exgratia @Rs. 15 Lakhs for each to 35 over aged contractual workman as a terminal benefit engaged through various contractors in the establishment of M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil and Gas, S. Yanam East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh is legal and justified? If not, what relief the Union is entitled to?” 3. “Whether the demand put forth by the Union of Employment of one family member in place of 35 old aged retiring contractual workman through contractor in the establishment of M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil and Gas, S. Yanam East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh is legal and justified? If not, what relief the Union is entitled to?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 44/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner counsel filed petition under section 11 of ID Act with the prayer to permit to withdraw the present ID case as the Petitioner union has entered into agreement with Respondents u/s 12(3) read with Sec. 18(3) of the I.D. Act 1947, before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(C), Hyderabad on 26.09.2024 over the Charter of Demands mentioned in the reference. Hence, Petitioner union intended to withdraw the present ID as settled out of Court. In view of the memorandum of settlement dated 26-9-2024 the petition filed by the Petitioner union is allowed and Petitioner /Union is permitted to withdraw present ID case in view of said memorandum of settlement. Award is passed is accordingly. Reference is answered in accordingly. Transmit u/s 17 of ID Act. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 30th day of January, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1395 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 546.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स च ऑनिोर कंस्ट्रक्िन कंपनी प्राइवटे जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री छट्टी सर ेंर क मार के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, एनाकच लम, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 36/2022) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. िेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-26] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Onshore Construction Company Private Limited and Sri Chhatti Surendra Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025- IR (M)-26] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT: ERNAKULAM Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of March, 2025 ID No. 36/2022 Between: Sri Chatti Surendra Kumar, S/o Nooka Raju, 7-5-26, Chattivani Palem, Opp: Electrical Sub-Station Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam - 530026 …..Petitioner1396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND: M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd ATL Corporate Park, 7th Floor, Saki Vihar Road Powai, Mumbai – 400072 ….. Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent: Dr K K HM Syam Sundar & K Shiva Kumar, Advocates AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Hyderabad by its order No.8/3/2022/B1 dated 11.02.2022, referred the following dispute under clause(d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd. and their workman. The schedule of the reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of Management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd , a contractor of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakh Refinery, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri Chatti Surendra Kumar, Ex-Khalasi (Semi-skilled)w.e.f. 13.12.2020 is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.36/2022 and the case is presently posted on 28.04.2025, for Appearance of petitioner. 2. The matter was taken up today for hearing in view of the direction of Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India to conduct special campaign for disposal of cases vide letter dated 14.2.2025. 3. Heard both sides. The respondent filed a memo with the averment that the Industrial Dispute was settled amicably with the petitioner with a Long Term Settlement on 20.9.2022 and a copy of settlement is also filed alongwith memo. Therefore, respondent prayed to close the present dispute treating it as not pressed in the interest of justice. 4. The petitioner has also concurred the same. 5. Therefore, in view of the above, a No-dispute Award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, corrected and signed by me on this the 5th day of March, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Union/Petitioner Management/Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 547.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स च ऑनिोर कंस्ट्रक्िन कंपनी प्राइवटे जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री पाजलका एलीआज़ार के[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1397 बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, एनाकच लम, पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 35/2022) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. िडे -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-27] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Onshore Construction Company Private Limited and Sri Palika Eleazar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025- IR (M)-27] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT: ERNAKULAM Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of March, 2025 ID No. 35/2022 Between: Sri Palika Eleazar S/o Palika Samuel, Venkatapuram Gramam SC Colony, Thana (PO), Munagapakam Mandalam Thanam, Visakhapatnam …..Petitioner AND: M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd ATL Corporate Park, 7th Floor, Saki Vihar Road Powai, Mumbai – 400072 ….. Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent: Dr K K HM Syam Sundar & K Shiva Kumar, Advocates AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Hyderabad by its order No.8/2/2022/B1 dated 11.02.2022, referred the following dispute under clause(d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd. and their workman. The schedule of the reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of Management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd , a contractor of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakh Refinery, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri Palika Eleazar, Ex-store Assistant is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.35/2022 and the case is presently posted on 28.04.2025, for Appearance of petitioner.1398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The matter was taken up today for hearing in view of the direction of Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India to conduct special campaign for disposal of cases vide letter dated 14.2.2025. 3. Heard both sides. The respondent filed a memo with the averment that the Industrial Dispute was settled amicably with the petitioner with a Long Term Settlement on 20.9.2022 and a copy of settlement is also filed alongwith memo. Therefore, respondent prayed to close the present dispute treating it as not pressed in the interest of justice. 4. The petitioner has also concurred the same. 5. Therefore, in view of the above, a No-dispute Award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, corrected and signed by me on this the 5th day of March, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Union/Petitioner Management/Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 548.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj रक्षा अन संिान एवं प्रयोगिालाएँ 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 (a60/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. एल -14011/05/2021-आईआर(बी-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.60/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Defense Research and Laboratories and their workmen. [No. L-14011/05/2021- IR(B-I] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 7th day of February, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2021 Between: The Workering President, DRDL Casual Workers Union, BMS Office, TRT-141, Jawahar Nagar Street No.9 Hyderabad-500020. ..….Petitioner[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1399 AND The Director, DRDL (Defense Research and Laboratries) Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : A. Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent: None AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-14011/5/2021 (IR(DU)) dated 04.08.2021 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. DRDL , and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the claim of DRDL Casual Workers Union against the management of DRDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad that the management of DRDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad changed the service condition of workers from casual workers to contract workers ( List of workers enclosed) during pendency of conciliation proceedings is proper, legal and justified in the view of section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? If not, to what relief these workers are entitled for? What directions, if any, are necessary in the matter? The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 60/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent. Case is fixed for today for filing claim statement but despite providing sufficient opportunity, he did not file any claim statement. It seems that petitioner do not want to pursue his case. Hence, in absence of claim statement ‘Nil award’ is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 7th day of February, 2025 IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 549.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj बकैं ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a18/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)-44] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court1400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Hyderabad 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)-44] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 7th day of February, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.18/2018 Between: Tholla Satish Kumar, S/o T. Subbaiah, Aged about 26 years, R/o H.No. 3-192, Bhupal Nagar, Nanadanapally Village, Kurnool Mandal-518452. ..…. Petitioner AND 1. State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH), Administrative Office at Gunfoundary, Abids, Hyderabad, Amaravathi/Vijayawada Circle. Rep. by its Chief General Manager. General Manager. 2. The branch Manager, State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH) Nandyal Road Branch (21660), Near Kamal complex, Kurnool-518002. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner: M Kiran Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate AWARD Smt. Tholla Satish Kumar, who worked as Safia Karamchari/Attender/Lunch Room Attendant (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages, with all other attendant benefits. 2. On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. In absence of evidence ‘Nil award’ is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 7th day of February, 2025 IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1401 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 550.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj बकैं 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; ds iapkV (a63/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)-43] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad 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)-43] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 7th day of February, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.63/2018 Between: Smt. Uppari Deepa, W/o Late Praveen Kumar, Aged about 40 years, R/o H.No. 9-3-171, Rezimental Bazar, Secundrabad-500027. ..…. Petitioner AND 1. State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH), Administrative Office at Koti, Bank street, Hyderabad, Telengana Circle, Rep. by its chief General Manager.1402 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The branch Manager, State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH) Himmathnagar Branch (20244), 10-3-194 Screccs Building, St. Johns Road, Beside Himmatnagar Post Office, Telangana-500025. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner: M Kiran Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate AWARD Smt. Uppari Deepa, who worked as Safia Karamchari/Attender/Lunch Room Attendant (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages, with all other attendant benefits. 2. On the date fixed for Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner called absent. Despite providing sufficient opportunity Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. In absence of evidence ‘Nil award’ is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 7th day of February, 2025 IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 551.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj बकैं ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a124/2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/45/2004- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 124/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/45/2004- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1403 ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 25th day of February, 2025 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 124/2004 Between: Smt. K. Saraswathi, D.No.26-23-22/1, Sundaramma Street, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada-3. ….. Petitioner AND The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RG-II, Zonal Office, No.29-14-59, Route No.5, Surya Rao Pet, Vijayawada. …. Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Party in Person For the Respondent: Sri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/ 45/ 2004-IR(B.I) dated 23.7.2004 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada in dismissing the services of Smt. K. Saraswathi, Ex-Clerk is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 124/2004 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. Earlier present ID was decided by this tribunal by an award related 8.8.2006 against which the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.20986 of 2007 and Hon’ble High Court of AP has set aside the award dated 8.8.2006 passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the CGIT cum Labour Court for disposal on merits and in strict accordance with the procedure established by law. Therefore, matter has been heard afresh and being decided. 2. The averments made is the claim statement are as follows: The Petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents for awarding disproportionate punishment of dismissal of the Petitioner from the service without following the laid down procedure and not paying the Management PF Contribution, Gratuity, Pension and superannuation benefits along with arrears as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, discriminatory and violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that Petitioner's husband Late Sri K. Venkata Ramana Prasad was appointed as cashier in the respondent bank on 11.5.1966, while he was working as Deputy Head Cashier at Governorpeta Branch died on 20.7.1982. Due to sudden death of Late K Venkata Ramana Prasad to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve from financial destitution the Petitioner was appointed as clerk in the respondent Bank on 8.3.1983, on compassionate grounds and posted at Vijayawada branch as clerk. It is further submitted that while she was working at Vijayawada Branch Respondent Bank suspended the Petitioner in violation of the Bipartite Settlements/awards and without furnishing the purpose for which the Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 24.8.2001 served on the Petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the service conditions vide clause 19.11 of First Bipartite Settlement dt. 19-10-1966 & Clause 11 of the MoS dated 10-4-2002, the Petitioner shall be communicated about the decision of disciplinary action within 3 days thereof. But in this case the Petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 16.10.2001 i.e.. about 2 months and the charge sheet dt.29-5-2002 was issued after 9 months. It is gross violation of clause 11 of the settlements signed under sec.2(p), Sec. l 8(1) of the ID Act 1947 read with rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central Rules 1957). It is submitted that the Branch Manager of Nunna Branch has issued a show cause notice alleging certain serious omissions and commissions of fraud against the Petitioner, calling her explanation within 10 days. The Petitioner has sent her reply vide her letter dt.21-01-2001 denying the allegations. It is submitted that the Assistant General Manager & Disciplinary Authority had issued a Charge sheet dt. 29-03-2002, with vague allegations in terms of 521 (4) (i) of1404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Sastry Award read with para 18.28 of Desai Award and subsequent Bipartite Agreements calling explanation within 15 days from the Petitioner. The Petitioner has sent her reply to the Respondent vide her letter dt. 8-6-2002 denying the allegations. But alleged misconduct is not in the definition of Gross misconduct and hence, the charge sheet is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Charge sheet clearly indicates that the Disciplinary Authority had already come to a definite opinion and closed mind about the alleged misconduct as if committed by the Petitioner and with bias against him, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. Audi alteranm partem is the principle that no one should be condemned without a hearing in which they are given the opportunity to respond to the accusations against them. It is considered a principle of fundamental justice and without proper evaluation of the evidence, when the allegation of forgery and withdrawal was not established without considering the version of the Petitioner and the records is gross violation of the said principle. The Complainant /Account Holder Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi of the Respondent Bank stated in PEX 8, that she visited the Bank on 07-03-2001 without passbook and asked the help of the Petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs 30.000 and that The Petitioner witnessed her signature. This is the self declaration given by account holder herself which is recorded as PEX 8 and the Inquiry Officer ignored here PEX 8, the transaction which has been duly verified by the branch manager. But, in this case the Petitioner was all of a sudden suspended and not aware whether the suspension is on account of pending enquiry or initiation of enquiry, thus the DA with out mentioning the reasons and grounds suspended the Petitioner which is in violation of the settlement unlawful, unjust and arbitrary and violation articles of the constitution of India. It is submitted that Petitioner received notice of enquiry to be held at Nunna Branch and the copies of the documents relied by the Respondent Bank, will be provided during the enquiry. It is submitted that the Petitioner attended the enquiry on 30- 7-2002 and gave a representation authorizing Ch. Venkateswara Rao, Asst. General Secretary to defend her case in the enquiry. The next date of enquiry was 9-8-2002 and the enquiry was concluded on the same date. Further, it is submitted that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner disproportionate. Hence, this petition. The Petitioner further submits that there is no financial loss to the bank. The para 521(4)() of Sastry Award states that " doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank into serious loss". But the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the allegation leveled against the Petitioner. The allegation though was not proved the prosecution failed to establish about the loss suffered by the bank. Hence the entire charge sheet shall be treated as not proved and the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is not only disproportionate but shall be reviewed in terms of the punishment under clause para 521 (7) of Sastry Award & clause 8 of the MoS dated 10-4-2002 . The Presenting officer had submitted his report to the Enquiry Officer, but not provided a copy of the Presenting officer, to enable the Defence counsel of the Petitioner to submit his counter objections on the report. It is bad in law and violation of principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to submit that the Defence counsel submitted his brief to the Enquiry Officer on 14-10-2002, without an opportunity to counter brief of the Presenting Officer. It is unfair and unconstitutional to deny the report of the PO. However, the EO without providing an opportunity to peep into the averments made by the PO reached to conclusions without proper evaluation of the evidence on record. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 23-10-2002 to the Respondent finding the Petitioner guilty of all the 4 charges levelled against her. The respondent issued proceedings No. DPS/R- 11/No. 568 dated 24-10-2002 forwarding a copy of the enquiry report to the Petitioner and asking for any submissions in reply to the enquiry report within 15 days. In reply to the same, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 14-11-2002, giving an explanation to all the charges and requesting to exonerate the Petitioner from the charges. Later, the respondent, issued proceedings No. DPS/R-11/No.844, dated 13-01-2003, stating that the penalty of Dismissal from Bank Service without notice" is decided to be imposed on the Petitioner in terms of para 6(a) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002 in Disciplinary Action Procedure in the Bank. The copy of the final disciplinary proceedings were sent to the Petitioner. In the instant case there is no legal evidence available to prove the alleged charges and in fact on record that the charge was negated by the customer vide PEX-8 herself deposing that she herself came to the bank on 7-3-200l and presented the withdrawal form. Hence, the charge is disproved beyond reasonable doubt. The material on record was failed to establish any forgery etc.. It is bad in law and the Hon'ble court in the case of Central Bank of India V Prakash Chand Jain. (1969 IILLJ 377 SC) has expressed that in such case of two fold test the Findings of the EO shall be considered as perversity of findings. It is to note that on perusal of the findings of the EO, reached to conclusions mechanically without considering the enquiry proceedings where depositions of PW1 to PW3 who were negated the charges. The EO findings the allegation of forgery was not proved and the statement of PWl negated the allegation. It is further submitted that relying upon the false and frivolous findings of the Enquiry Officer, DA simply adopted the findings of the EO without considering the proceedings and the nature of omission and commission and gave the punishment in the absence of any documentary/oral evidence, is not acceptable and the then Branch Manager and other Assistant Sri D.Suryanarayana Sastry equally negligent due to which the alleged omission and commissions ought to have averted if they observed the lapses in the system in performing duties. But, the management has not given any punishment to them surprisingly, the Assist (A & C) was treated the vital allegation as matter of administration and discharged from accountability with a caution vide letter dt.26-6-2002 issued by the Disciplinary authority in the capacity of Asst.General Manager. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. It is further submitted that the then Branch Manager PWI deposed that Mr.Rawoof initialed the balance columns in the Ledger Book. The Accountant Sri Rawoof was not summoned by the Respondent Bank to depose on this aspect. In the absence of the evidence of the Accountant Sri Rawoof, it cannot be[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1405 held that the charges against the Petitioner are sufficiently proved. The Respondent completely shifted the burden on to the Petitioner, absolving the Branch Manager who is duly bound to verify the signature on the withdrawal form with that of the specimen signature at the time of passing the withdrawal form and more so when he was informed by the Petitioner that the account holder came to the Bank without passbook and asked her help. There is no action against the Accountant and the Branch Manager at Nunna Branch and only targeted Petitioner and removed from the service and the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges and unsustainable. Petitioner approached Appellate Authority through representation which was dismissed on 24-04-2003 without assigning any reasons and rationale to arrive such decision to dismiss the appeal. It is further submitted that challenging the Award dt.08-08- 2006 of dismissing the dispute of Petitioner, passed in ID 124 of 2004 on the file of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court at Hyderabad, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before the erstwhile AP High Court at Hyderabad vide WP No.20986 of 2007. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High court allowed the Writ Petition and setting aside the Award dt 8-8-2006, in ID No.124 of 2004 and remitted the matter back to the CGIT for disposal afresh on merits and in strict accordance with the procedure established by law. The Hon'ble High Court considering the fact that the Petitioner already attained the age of superannuation and the matter is sufficiently old matter directed the tribunal to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. None of the allegations was proved during the enquiry. It is essentially required to be proved in accordance with law. Denial of opportunity to employee to submit his version, relying on the documents used by the management to prepare the charge sheet is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and vitiates the departmental enquiry for non-adherence to principles of natural justice as held by the Apex court in the case of L.I.C. of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen. The Petitioner is unable eke out her livelihood due to financial problems and added to the financial crisis she is old and suffering from old age ailments. The Management has neither paid the Bank's PF contribution nor paid the gratuity to the service she rendered to the bank for more than 18 years. The Petitioner since already attained superannuation though shè is entitled for all the superannuation benefits including the payment of pension etc.. the bank has not paid the superannuation benefits to the Petitioner is violation of article 2l of the constitution of India. Therefore, Petitioner prayed to set aside the dismissal order dated 13.1.2003 duly granting all consequential benefits etc.. 3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under: It is submitted that the dispute raised by the Petitioner is neither maintainable in law nor on facts of the case and as such the same is to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that the material allegations made in the petition filed by the Petitioner are not true and correct and the Respondent Bank denies all the allegations leveled against the Bank, except those which are specifically admitted therein. It is submitted that the Petitioner is raising unfounded dispute and entered into litigation. It is submitted that the Petitioner being an employee, has to Work as per the service rules and guidelines stipulated to her post by Bank. Any misconduct committed by employee results in initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against such person. It is submitted that the Petitioner knowing fully the lapses committed on her part, which are all on record, is however, trying to convince the Hon'ble Court on sympathetic grounds by filing this petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim Pension as of right, as she has no vested right to claim Pension. The reason is, as per record, she has not completed the required period of service as required and essential under the service rules applicable to her to be eligible to get Pension. On the other hand, the Petitioner is claiming other incidental benefits to which she is not eligible. On this ground itself, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Petitioner Smt K.Saraswathi was appointed in the Bank on compassionate grounds in March 1983 consequent to death of her husband who worked as Deputy head cashier in the Bank. It is submitted that subsequently, the Petitioner was issued charge sheeted vide Memorandum No.DPS/R-1/172 dated 29.05.2002 for certain irregularities/lapses viz., Presenting forged withdrawal pertaining to customer Smt Y.Nirmala Devi's account and obtaining payment thereof; unauthorizedly keeping the amount withdrawn by means of such forged withdrawal for a considerable period of 5 months 10 days with her; Posting two extraneous credits to the account of Smt. Y.Nirmala Devi, the customer, without supporting vouchers and; altering the balance in the savings bank account of Smt.Y.Nirmala Devi, the customer, on several occasions to facilitate monthly balancing of SB accounts. It is submitted that on being not satisfied with the reply of the Petitioner, a detailed domestic enquiry was ordered by appointing the Enquiry Officer and the presenting officer under advise to the Petitioner. The Petitioner / charge- sheeted employee was represented by the Assistant General Secretary of Zonal Office, Vijayawada, of State Bank of India Staff Union, Hyderabad Circle. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.10.2002 and held the charges as 'Proved' based on the material evidence, documents and records. A Copy of the enquiry report was also furnished to the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Petitioner's submission were received on 15.11.2002. Taking into consideration the entire material on record pertaining to the case of the Petitioner and as malafides were involved, the then Asst. General Manager & Disciplinary Authority proposed tentative penalty of "Dismissal from Bank Service" vide memorandum no. DPS/R-II/755 dated 19.12.2002. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was thereafter provided with personal hearing on 11.01.2003 for any further submissions. Based on the submissions given by her on personal hearing, material evidence and other documents, papers and all exhibits, the then Asst. General Manager & Disciplinary Authority made absolute the proposed punishment and accordingly served the final Orders vide Memorandum No. DPS/R-II/844 dated 13.01.2003 imposing the penalty of "Dismissal from Bank's Service without notice" as provided for in the Bi-Partite Settlements. The Petitioner preferred departmental appeal vide letter and1406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dated 27.02.2003. The Deputy General Manager Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration all the material facts, evidences, depositions, and the contentions / grounds raised in the appeal, had independently examined the case and recorded his findings wherein it was clearly established that signature of the account holder with other records vary with the impugned withdrawal slip and the same was verified by the Government Examiner; it is also proved that the Petitioner made the amount good subsequently and that the Petitioner has kept the money (Rs.30,000/-) with her for 05 month and 10 days; and that the Petitioner had posted extraneous credits without supporting vouchers and the balances were altered in the ledger account; Thus, it was established that the Petitioner had withdrawn the amount through forged withdrawal, kept the amount with her for some period and made good the amount only after the account holder made a Complaint, posted two credits, altered the ledger account of the customer. Hence, the contentions / grounds raised by the Petitioner in the departmental appeal were held to be untenable. The Petitioner in fact was appointed on compassionate grounds and hence, she should not have committed such irregularities by misusing her powers in the discharge of duties. Therefore, the General Manager and Appellate Authority, held that the appeal has no merits and declined to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, hence, rejected the departmental appeal vide Orders dated 24.04.2003. It is submitted that as the Petitioner K Saraswathi did not attend the court, NIL Award was passed by CGIT due to her non appearance. Hence, the Petitioner is well aware about the commission of lapses. It is submitted that the Petitioner subsequently challenged the said Nil Award before Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad by way of filing the Writ Petition No. 20986 of 2007, wherein the Hon'ble High Court considering the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds held that an opportunity has to be given to her to have her case decided on merits. It is submitted that it is a matter of record that the disciplinary proceedings were already taken against Petitioner for her lapses in duty and the enquiry was conducted by the concerned authority of the Bank following the stipulated guidelines, giving opportunity to Petitioner at every stage of enquiry which took place way back in the year 2002-2003. As her lapses were proved, the order of Dismissal was passed against her. In the appeal filed by her against the order vide order No DPS/R-II/No 844 dated 13.01.2003, was also dismissed onn 24.04.2003. This fact was also admitted by the Petitioner in her petition. Thus, the order had become final and the Petitioner also received her PF which contributions she was eligible under law. The Petitioner has attained the age above 60 years and at this juncture cannot claim any benefits as she is not eligible to get any relief sought by her. But as per record, she has completed 19 years of service only. So, she is ineligible to get pension as per service rules applicable to her. It is also pertinent to note that the contention raised by the Petitioner that there is no loss to the Bank is highly untenable at the cost of her apology as the Bank is a financial institution and integrity and honesty is the basic norm expected from all its employees. The loss of reputation is also an issue and hence, the contentions raised by the Petitioner are liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the Petitioner was paid the benefits that are payable to a dismissed employee and she cannot claim more than what was paid to her by Bank i.e., PF contribution paid to her. As more than 17 years passed from the date of dismissal and Petitioner attained age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, now it is unfeasible to consider the merits in this case, as no benefit can be extended by Bank to the Petitioner in these circumstances. It is submitted that the Rules as applicable to the Petitioner were imposed as per the Bi-Partite Settlements. It is also relevant to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while adjudicating the issues, involving similar situation, in State Bank cf Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya AIR 2011 SC 1931, Judgment reported in (1998) 4 SCC310, Vishwamohun Vs. Union of India, Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tarachand Vyas Vs. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565. Bank employees deal with the money of depositors and customers. As such they are required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge their duties with utmost integrity, honesty and devotion and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank employee/Officer. It is no defence to say that there is no loss or profit resulted in the case. It is pertinent to state that owing to fraudulent acts of the Petitioner, the bank is put to reputation loss and loss of public money and there are no extenuating circumstances warranting for extending sympathy to consider for any leniency in the matter". It is submitted that the petition is baseless on facts and untenable as per Law. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, as the petition is devoid of merits. 4. Both the parties have submitted their written submissions. 5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues arise for determination in the present case:- I. Whether the departmental enquiry held against Smt. K. Saraswathi, Ex. Clerk of State Bank of India is legal and valid? II. Whether the action of management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada in dismissing the services of Smt. K. Saraswathi, Ex. Clerk is justified? III. To what relief the Workman is entitled? Findings:- 6. Point No. I:- The legality and validity of departmental enquiry has been held legal and valid vide order dated 22.11.2024. This point is decided accordingly.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1407 7. Point No. II:- In the instant case Petitioner Smt. K. Saraswathi has challenged her dismissal order passed by respondent vide proceeding dated 13.1.2003 imposing the penalty of dismissal from bank’s services without notice on the grounds of that being it is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. The record of enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that following charges framed against the charge sheeted employee:- “1. It is reported that on 7.3.2001 you have presented a forged Savings Bank withdrawal dated 7.3.2001 for Rs.30,000/- without pass book pertaining to SB account No.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi, a customer and obtained payment thereof. 2. It is reported that you have unauthorizedly kept the amount of Rs.30,000/- withdrawn by you from the SB account No.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi by means of a forged withdrawal on 7.3.2001 till 17.8.2001 i.e., for a period of 5 months – 10 days and when Smt. Y. Nirmaladevi made a complaint to the Branch manager of Nunna branch, you have made good the said amount on 17.8.01 to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nunna with a written request to handover the same to Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi. 3. It is reported that you have posted two extraneous credits of Rs.30,000/- each on 22.3.2001 and 13.4.2001 in the saving bank account no.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi, a customer, without supporting vouchers. 4. It is reported that you have altered the balances in the Savings Bank Account No.12/2556 of Smt Y. Nirmala Devi on several occasions from 7.3.01 onwards to facilitate monthly balancing.” After recording the evidence, Enquiry Officer had found charge sheeted employee guilty of the charges as mentioned above. 9. First and foremost plea taken by Petitioner is that the complaint is starting point of any disciplinary action but in the present matter there is no complaint against the Petitioner and Enquiry Officer has not called the customer, the complainant as management witness in the enquiry whereas the PW1 in his cross examination has clearly stated that as per PEx.8 the complainant /account holder Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi visited bank on 7.3.2001 without passbook and asked the help of Petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs.30,000/- from her account. Therefore, Petitioner has signed as a witness on withdrawal form. Thus, for the want of evidence of complainant customer Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi the dismissal order of Petitioner is illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. Perused the record. In this case the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the CSE Petitioner on the charge of committing misconduct while she was working in the Bank as Senior Assistant. The allegation against the Petitioner is that she had presented forged SB account withdrawal form and obtained the payment of Rs.30,000/- from the SB Account of customer Smt. Nirmala Devi unauthorizedly and misappropriated the aforesaid amount for considerable period of 5 months 10 days. Secondly, she has been charge sheeted for altering the balances in SB account No.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi, without supporting voucher and altering the balances in SB account of the customer to facilitate monthly balancing and such acts of CSE which amounted to gross misconduct. The charges alleged has been held proved against CSE in the disciplinary proceedings and Enquiry Officer on the basis of appreciation of documentary and oral evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 on record has submitted his report holding CSE guilty of charges. 11. It is settled law that a customer of bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry conducted as such a course would not be conducive to proper banker customer relationship and therefore, would not be in the interest of bank. In this context, reference of the decision of State Bank of India vs Tarun Kumar Banerjee, AIR 2000 page 3028 is relevant. Therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that customer of the bank cannot be involved in domestic enquiry against the employees of the bank as it would not be conducive to proper bank-customer relationship. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the plea raised by the Petitioner in this respect is not tenable. 12. Further Petitioner has taken the plea that the statement of imputation of misconduct on which CSE was charge sheeted employee shall accompany a charge sheet to submit her reply. The object of furnishing statement of imputation to the delinquent official is to give him all the necessary particulars and details relating to charge so that she will have sufficient opportunity to put her defence. But in the instant case she has been denied the supply of list of documents and list of witnesses produced by Management in support of the charges. Further, it is contended that Audi Alteram Partem is the principle that no one should be condemned without a hearing in which they are given the opportunity to respond to the accusations against them when the allegation of forgery and withdrawal was not established. The Management in the instant case without considering the version of the Petitioner and the records has passed her dismissal order in gross violation of the said principle. 13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent contended that the departmental enquiry against the charge sheeted employee has been held by following the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing was extended to the Petitioner during the enquiry. Further, it is submitted that the defence representative was also permitted during the enquiry on behalf of the Petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that fair opportunity of hearing was not accorded is baseless and not acceptable.1408 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 14. Perused the record of enquiry proceeding. The record of enquiry goes to reveal that Petitioner CSE has been accorded ample opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceeding which she availed and she never raised any objection at any stage of proceeding complaining of causing of prejudice of any nature to her before the Enquiry Officer. Further, the record of enquiry proceeding goes to show that she received all the papers and documents filed that relied upon by the Respondent bank in support of the charge sheet and she also filed her reply and also cross examined the management witness and the opportunity to adduce evidence in defence was also accorded to her which she did not avail. The inquiry report further goes to show that the Enquiry Officer appreciated the oral or documentary evidence and thereafter has submitted his reasoned report holding the CSE guilty of all four charges. Therefore, in the instant case, no case is made out to hold that domestic enquiry suffers from any procedural lapses or was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the applicant. Further, the record of enquiry proceeding goes to reveals that defence representative on behalf of the charge sheeted employee has also submitted his written brief on conclusion of the hearing of the enquiry and she never complained of non-service of documents on which the Respondent has relied upon in support of the charge. Therefore, in view of fore gone discussion the plea of the Petitioner that she was not accorded fair opportunity of hearing during enquiry proceeding is not tenable. 15. Further, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the charges were framed against the Petitioner with the allegation that on 7.3.2001 she had presented a forged Savings Bank withdrawal dated 7.3.2001 for Rs. 30,000/- without passbook pertaining to SB account No.12/2256 of Smt. Y.Nirmala Devi a customer and obtained the payment herself and misappropriated the same unauthorizedly by keeping amount of Rs.30,000/- for the period of 5 months 10 days without any justification and explanation. Further, when customer/Account holder Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi made a complaint to the Branch Manager of Nunna branch, CSE has made good the amount on 17.8.2001. Petitioner contended that none of the ingredients of i.e., forged withdrawal, unauthorisedly keeping money with her has been proved in the absence of evidence either through oral or through documentary. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that charge stands proved against CSE is arbitrary and frivolous. 16. In this context, perused the record. It is undisputed that there was withdrawal of the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the account No.12/ 2566 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi on 7.3.2001 by the Petitioner and same amount was handed over to the Branch Manager by the Petitioner /CSE on 17.8.2001 after a period of 5 months 10 days. The fact of withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- by the Petitioner /CSE from the SB Account of Smt. Nirmala Devi on 7.3.2001 and keeping the said amount by CSE until 17.8.2001 with her and got it returned to Branch Manager on 17.8.2001 after a long period of 5 months 10 days is clearly established by oral and documentary evidence on record. However, during the Departmental enquiry proceeding, when Enquiry Officer asked charge sheeted employee whether she wants to submit anything in the matter. In reply CSE stated that as quoted below verbatim:- “I have been appointed in the bank through compassionate appointment. I have three children out of which one boy and girl are not settled yet. I have the responsibility to look after them. I have not done any mistake knowingly. Please forgive me with a big heart if I have done any mistake unknowingly. Please give back my job to me. I promise that I will not make any mistake further, will work to the satisfaction of the higher authorities and will not bring any defame to the bank. I have no other assets other than this job. My children and I will become orphans without this job. So I request you to please forgive me as this is my first mistake and please give back my job to me. I have been cheated in many ways in my life. I am totally dependent on this job. Myself and my family members will become orphans without the job. Please forgive me with mercy.” Thus, from the aforesaid statement of CSE it is clearly established that on 7.3.2001 Petitioner/CSE has withdrawn the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the bank account of one customer Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi unauthorizedly by means of forged withdrawal and kept the said amount with her for a period of 5 months 10 days. Thus, Petitioner had admitted her mistake that is further corroborated by oral and documentary evidence on record. Thus, Petitioner has committed misconduct of misappropriation of money and rightly held guilty of charges. Further, it is established that Smt.Y. Nirmaladevi made a complaint to the Branch Manager of Nunna branch, of short of fund inher SB Account on 17.8.2001 and thereafter CSE made good the said amount on 17.8.2001 to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nunna. Further, CSE has also written an application to Branch Manager with request to handover the said amount to Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi. Thus, there is ample evidence on record in support of the charges levelled against the CSE /Petitioner. The plea of Petitioner that ingredients of the charge framed against her is not supported by any evidence is not acceptable. 17. Petitioner strenuously argued that the complainant herein Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi has already withdrawn her complaint vide PEx. 8 moved against the CSE/Petitioner and therefore in these circumstances, the charges of unauthorised withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the account of Smt. Y.Nirmala Devi the complainant and retaining the amount with her for 5 months 10 days is not proved. 18. Perused the record of enquiry proceeding. During enquiry, Petitioner’s defence representative has cross examined PW2 and witness has stated about contents of PEx.8 reproduced as under:-[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1409 “It is a letter addressed to the Branch Manager, SBI, Name dt. 17/08/01 by Y Nirmala Devi W/O R Prasada Rao. Ashok Nagar Patamata, Vijayawada. The contents are that she is having SB A/C 12/2556 in our branch. On 07/03/2001 she came to the bank to withdraw and amount of Rs. 30,000/- but she forgot to bring the passbook. Hence, she requested Smt K Saraswathi, staff of Nunna branch to help her in drawing the amount since she needed the funds urgent, and she could not bring the passbook within the banking hours as she was staying at a long distance. On reverse of the voucher, Smt Saraswati witnessed her signature and asked her to wait or one will handover the cash at her residence. Today when she complained to the bank on 16/08/01 the amount was returned to her account by Smt K Saraswati. As such complaint may kindly be treated as withdrawn.” Thus, it is established that account holder Smt. Nirmala Devi has moved complaint dated 16.8.2011 for short of fund of Rs.30,000/- in her account against Petitioner Smt. Saraswathi Devi and later on she has withdrawn it. But the fact remains established that Petitioner has withdrawn the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the account of the complainant Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi on 7.3.2001 unauthorizedly and she kept it with her for a period of 5 months and 10 days returned the same on 17.8.2001. The Petitioner being posted on the post of Senior Assistant while in the employment of bank has to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and she is not authorised to withdraw the amount from the customer’s account unauthorisedly and to retain it with her for 5 months 10 days without any justification. The duty enjoins upon the Petitioner was either to return the amount to the customer or to inform the Branch Manager on the same day to get it deposited into the sundry account of the bank. But the conduct of the Petitioner by retaining the amount of Rs.30,000/- with her after withdrawing from the account of the complainant for 5 moths 10 days cannot be said to be justified in any manner whatsoever may be. As regards the act of misconduct committed by an employee I would like to make a reference of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as extracted below:- The “Misconduct” has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case M.M. Malhotra vs. Union of India others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraphs 17 to 21 on Misconduct' which are being reproduced as under: "17. The range of activities which may amount to acts which are inconsistent with the interest of public service and not befitting the status, position and dignity of a public servant are so varied that it would be impossible for the employer to exhaustively enumerate such acts and treat the categories of misconduct as closed. It has, therefore, to be noted that the word "misconduct" is not capable of precise definition. But at| the same time though incapable of precise definition, the word "misconduct" on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. The act complained of must bear a forbidden quality or character and its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. 18. In Union of India and Ors. v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, (2001| 5 SCC 593, in the background of Rule 14 of the Army Rules, it was held that any wrongful act or any act of delinquency which may or may not involve moral turpitude would be "misconduct" under Rule 14. 19. In Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2002] 3 SCC 667, it was held that the expression "misconduct" means unlawful behaviour, misfeasance, wrong conduct, misdemeanour etc. 20. Similarly, in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, AIR (1992) SC 2188), it was held that the term "misconduct" may involve moral turpitude. It must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. 21. "Misconduct" as stated in Batt's Law of Master and Servant (4th Edition) (at page 63) is "comprised positive acts and not mere neglects or failures," The definition of the word as given in Ballentine's Law Dictionary (148th Edition) is "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand, it is a violation of definite Law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness. Further, in the case Inspector Premchand vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, Hon'ble Apex Court considered the term "misconduct" and held as under in paragraphs 10 and 11: "10. In State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, it was stated: "Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Síxth Edition at page 999, thus: 'A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, willful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.' Misconduct in office has been defined as:1410 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] "Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the officer holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of affirmative duty to act." 11. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as under: "The term 'misconduct' implies, a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word 'misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct." From the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is evident that misconduct generally it means unlawful behaviour, wrong conduct, misdemeanor etc. The word misconduct has to be construed with the reference to the subject matter and the context where the term occurs. It is failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act and is not mere negligence or failure or an error of judgement. Thus, in the instant matter, the conduct of CSE can not be termed as negligence or failure or any error of judgement. But the record clearly shows that act of CSE Petitioner of misappropriation of money of Rs.30000/- after withdrawal of it from the account of customer by forged withdrawal for a considerable period of 5 months 10 days and in furtherance of that misconduct Petitioner also made a forged entry in order to correct monthly balance in the account of customer as well as in ledger entries goes to show the malafide act committed under definition of ‘Misconduct’. 19. As regards appreciation of evidence in the departmental proceeding, relevant decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court are being discussed below:- In the case of State of Haryana versus Rattan Singh 1977 ACC page 491 while dealing with the standard of proof/ Evidence applicable in domestic enquiry Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:- 4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. Ail materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding,even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below mis-directed themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passengers from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has elevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground. In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh, civil Appeal No.3340/2020, dated 29.10.2021, Hon’ble Apex Court have held: Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof be yond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy -deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no evidence or when they suffer from perversity. To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1411 in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the judges' craft is in vain.” In Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Anr. [(2008) 3 SCC 484], this Court held: “17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely - preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality." Thus, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above stated cases, in the instant matter there is ample documentary and oral evidence against the CSE to prove the charges against her that on 7.3.2001 she has withdrawn the amount of Rs.30,000/- unauthorizedly with forged withdrawal form from the SB account of one customer Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi and misappropriated the same till she made complaint on 16.8.2001 and CSE made good that amount to the Branch Manager after a period of 5 months 10 days. It is settled law that even the misappropriation of property of others for a short period, amounts to misconduct for which the delinquent is liable for disciplinary action. In the instant matter it is not a case of no evidence and there is ample documentary and oral evidence against delinquent on record. Hence, the plea of workman that dismissal order suffer from perversity is not tenable. 20. Therefore, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence as well as the admission of the CSE/Petitioner during the enquiry that she had unauthorizedly withdrawn an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the bank account of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi and retained it for 5 months 10 days unauthorizedly in violation of rules/regulations of Bank, thereby Petitioner has committed gross misconduct hence she has been awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. As the charges has been proved against the delinquent employee in the enquiry, no employer would suffer or allow or tolerate such behaviour of his employee and it has every right to initiate domestic enquiry against such employee for gross misconduct. Thus, the charges being serious in nature therefore the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner cannot be faulted with nor it can be said in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In other words, punishment of dismissal is proportionate with the gravity of the charges and deserves to be upheld. 21. Further, workman has taken the plea that there has been no loss to bank or to complainant except for some inconvenience of one day for which she has explained the reason. It is settled law that in the matter of disciplinary proceeding, question of loss is immaterial. In such matters, it is to be seen whether the conduct of delinquent employee was in contravention of rules/regulations, practice of employment, that amounts to misconduct and same attracts the disciplinary proceeding against employee. Hence, the facts remain that Petitioner has misappropriated the amount of customer of Rs.30000/- after withdrawing it from account by forged withdrawal and retained it for a considerable period of 5 months 10 days. The question of misconduct of delinquent employee has to be considered here, question of loss to any party is immaterial for disciplinary proceedings against employee. 22. As regards the jurisdiction of Tribunal to interfere in the decision of the disciplinary authority, regarding quantum of punishment is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that Courts will not act as an Appellate Court and reassess the evidence held in domestic enquiry nor interfere with the punishment. In this context, reference of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya in Civil Appeal No.5861/2007 AIR 2011 SC 1931 dated 1.3.2001 is relevant wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- “6. 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 Enquiry 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, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, 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 finding, on the material on record. 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.”1412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Further, in Vishwamohan Vs. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 310, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:- "trust is the corner stone of Banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee. If it is not observed, the confidence of the public/ depositors would be impaired". In Tarachand Viyas Vs. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565, where in the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:- "that the Bank employees are required to exercise higher degrees of honesty and integrity. They deal with the money of depositors and customers. As such they are required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge their duties with utmost integrity, honesty and devotion and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank employee/Officer. it is no defence to say that there is no loss or profit resulted in the case. It is pertinent to state that owing to fraudulent acts of the petitioner, the bank is put to reputation loss and loss of public money and there are no extenuating circumstances warranting for extending sympathy to consider for any leniency in the natter". Thus, in view of the above the plea of the Petitioner that the respondent management has imposed disproportionate punishment which is shockingly disproportionate to one’s conscious is not tenable. In the instant matter, the Departmental Enquiry has been conducted against the charge sheeted employee fairly and properly and findings are based on relevant evidence. The question of adequacy of evidence and the reliable nature of evidence will not be ground for interfering with the finding in Departmental Enquiries. Therefore, plea of the Petitioner in view of the above is not tenable. As regards nature of gravity of the misconduct committed by Petitioner is concerned, in this context I would like to make reference of few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are discussed as under:- In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. PC Kakkar AIR 2003 SC page 3571, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held, “Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity -Defence that there was no loss of profit resulting – not available when delinquent employee acted without authority- High Court setting aside as shockingly disproportionate without indicating reasons – Amounts to denial of justice- fact that co-delinquent is given lesser punishment – can also be no ground for interference.” In JP Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India 1982 AIR page 673, “ the facts of the case are that the Appellant was working as cashier in the Meerut State branch of State Bank of India, the complainant, came to bank to receive his pass book. On receipt of pass book accountholder complained that he had withdrawn only Rs.500/- but there is entry of Rs.1500/- as shown in the passbook. The complainant reported matter to the Supervisor R K Gupta, and necessary documents pertaining to such withdrawal were examined and it was found that the complainant has given a letter of authority to the Appellant workman and authorizing to withdraw the amount Rs.500/-from his account. The said authority letter was for withdrawal of Rs.500/-, but, workman acting as cashier manipulated figure in the letter from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- and withdrawn the amount retained Rs.1000/- with him. In that case enquiry was held and the casual Appellant was dismissed from the job. In the case the alleged misconduct of the Appellant to produce forged documents and withdrew Rs.1500/- instead Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- in excess of the amount which he was not authorized misappropriated it. In that case Appellant had submitted his confession letter and on the basis of the confession letter and substantial evidence he was terminated from the service and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the termination of the Appellant.” (vii). In the case of Darshan Singh Vs. Canara Bank CWP No.10458/ 2003 D.O.D. 6.4.2017 High Court held: “the Court has rightly observed that oral evidence contrary to documentary evidence and entries has not to be believed this was the case defendant for proof of misconduct on documentary evidence and entries in the Saving Bank Account pass book and ledger folios etc.. The workman admitted that these entries made by him saying that it was made under bonafide mistake. Such act have serious propensities which when made public a bank might loss its reputation and confidence in investing public, not continue employment. It was the case of misappropriation. Even if it is classified as temporary misappropriation or temporary embezzlement both are bad of law. Workman therefore, cannot be absolved simply, by saying that entries were some bonafide mistake. In the opinion of Labour Court no lenience can be shown to the workman. Once the misconduct is proved in the enquiry conducted by employer, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization.” Further, in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs. A.L. Mohan Rao, Civil Appeal No.1733 of 2004, date of decision 26.10.2005 Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld punishment of dismissal of bank employee of gross misconduct of similar nature as in the instant matter.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1413 23. The facts of the case are that, Respondent was working as an attendar at the Kudregundi branch of appellant bank and he was charge sheeted for gross misconduct in as much as he has colluded with one of the Branch Managers and enabled grant of a fictitious loan in the name of one Sri Ramakrishna, the real beneficiary being a person named B. Raghava. During enquiry, the Respondent admitted that he prepared the loan agreement. He admitted that he had made the relevant entries in the Ledger and credit and debit slips and also prepared DP note and the other documents required for the purpose of loan. It was admitted that he had prepared these documents knowing that he had no authority to make any entries in the books/ledgers. In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:- “6. In our view, a gross misconduct of this nature does merit termination. We fail to see what other type of misconduct would merit termination. It is not for the courts to interfere in cases of gross misconduct of this nature with the decision of the disciplinary authority so long as the inquiry has been fair and proper and misconduct proved. In such matters, it is for the disciplinary authority to decide what is the fit punishment. In any case on such a misconduct, it could never have been said that termination of service is not the appropriate punishment.” Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as discussed in preceding paragraphs, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the Petitioner for committing gross misconduct of misappropriation of amount of customers by withdrawing from SB account unauthorizedly, is proportionate with the gravity of the charges and it deserves to be upheld. Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Thus, Point No.II is decided accordingly. 24. Point No.III: In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and this petition is found to be baseless, hence, liable to be dismissed the action of Respondent Bank Management in dismissing the service of CSE is held justified. Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly. AWARD The action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada in dismissing the services of Smt. K. Saraswathi, Ex-Clerk is held legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 25th day of February, 2025. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 552.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनस रर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार ल इि इन्सरु ेंस कॉपोरेशन ऑफ़ इांगडय के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री उपद्रें मदनल ल पटल े के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एव ं श्रम न्यायालय, न िपरु , पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 04/2020- 21) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. जडे -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-28] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व1414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 04/2020-21) 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 Upendra Madanlal Patle which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-28] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/Appln/04/2020-21 Date: 11.03.2025. Party No.1: Upendra Madanlal Patle Aged about 34 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Rajegaon, Post Rajegaon, Tah. and District – Gondia. V/s. Party No.2: 1) The Life Insurance Corporation of India, through the Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Nagpur, National Insurance Building,S.V. Patel Marg, Nagpur, Tah. & District- Nagpur. 2) The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ganesh Nagar, Gondia, Tah. and District-Gondia. AWARD (Dated: 11th March, 2025) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (“the Act” in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and the applicant, Shri. Upendra M. Patle for adjudication, vide case no. CGIT/NGP/Appln/04/2020-2021, with the following issues framed:- “Whether the termination of the applicant vide order dated 19/01/2019 is legal, fair and justified?” 2. Case called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ghagarkar is present before the Court but none is present on behalf of the applicant. Applicant is not responding and attending the Court since 24/03/2023. Today the case is fixed for adducing evidence from the side of applicant and hearing on the application for dismissal of the case filed by the respondent dated 23/01/2025. Heard, Learned Counsel for the respondent on dismissal application but none is present on behalf of the applicant to protest against this application. Although applicant as well as respondent have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively but applicant has not filed any evidence to prove the contents of the claim. Applicant is not appearing before the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want to contest the case further more. Claim of the applicant is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence it is ordered. ORDER The termination of the applicant vide order dated 19/01/2019 is legal, fair and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1415 नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 553.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार इांडो बम स पट्रे ोल कांपनी गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री हर िोगवन्द बसहां के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, न िपरु , पर्ं ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 23/2001) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. ,y - 30012/10/2001- vkbZ vkj (एम)] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2001) 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 Indo Burma Petrol Company Limited and Shri Har Govind Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. L-30012/10/2001-IR(M)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/23/2001 Date: 11.03.2025. Party No.1: Indo Burma Petrol Co. Ltd. 265-A, Bajaj nagar, Nagpur. V/s. Party No.2: Sh. Har Govind Singh C/o Sh.R.R.Naidu,Jt. Secy, Hammer Workers Union, Sath Niwas, West Park Rd. Maurka Gali, Dhantoli Nagpur. AWARD (Dated: 11th March, 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 Dy. General Manager, IBP Company Ltd., Nagpur and their workman Shri Har Govind Singh, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-30012/10/2001 (IR(M)) dated 15.05.2001, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of Dy. General Manager, IBP Company Ltd. Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Har Govind Singh, Ex-courierman w.e.f. 15.10.1999 was legal, proper & justified? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 03/03/2023. Although, petitioner and respondent have filed statement of claim and written statement respectively. Petitioner has also filed affidavit as his evidence but petitioner has not come before the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the statement of claim. Previously, on 23/05/2002, case was decided by my predecessors. At that time no evidence was produced by the workman in support of the claim. Later on, this order was set aside and case has been restored but on same footing, petitioner is not attending the Court since long back and no1416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] other evidence has been adduced by him to prove his claim. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Case of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the management of Dy. General Manager, IBP Company Ltd. Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Har Govind Singh, Ex-courierman w.e.f. 15.10.1999 was legal, proper & justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 554.—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 es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (40a/2018-19) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 41012/25/2018- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 40/2018-19) 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 and their workmen. [No. L-41012/25/2018-IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/40/2018-19 Date: 27.02.2025. Party No.1: The Divisional Railway Manager (P), Central Railway, Nagpur division, Kingsway, Station Road, Nagpur – 440001. V/s. Party No.2: (a) Shri Walmik anandrao, C/o Plaza Tailors, S.T. Depot Road, Ramnagar, Wardha (M.S.) – 442001. (b) The Joint Divisional Secretary, Rail Kamgar Sena, Nagpur Divisional Office, Office No. 4, Basement, ‘C’ Wing, Rai Ashiyan Housing Society, Motibag, Nr. Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur – 440004.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1417 AWARD (Dated: 27th February, 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 Central Railway and their workman, Shri Walmik Anandrao Mankar through The Joint Divisional Secretary, Rail Kamgar Sena for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 41012/25/2018-IR(B-I) dated 31.10.2018, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway Manager in deducting illegal recovery of Rs. 4,915/- per month from the salary of Shri Walmik Anandrao Mankar w.e.f. 18.08.2015 and not returning the amount allegedly deducted is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not attending and responding since 13.06.2019. Petitioner has not filed Statement of claim till date. Similarly, Respondent has not filed Written Statement till date. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not attending and responding since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the management of Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway Manager in deducting illegal recovery of Rs. 4,915/- per month from the salary of Shri Walmik Anandrao Mankar w.e.f. 18.08.2015 and not returning the amount allegedly deducted is just, fair and legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 555.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj जविभच क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीर् बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a03/2010-11) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/86/2009- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2010-11) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen. [No. L-12012/86/2009- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/03/2010-11 Date: 20.02.2025. Party No.1: The Chairman, Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Swanand, Oke Marg, Jatharpeth, Dist- Akola (MS). V/s. Party No.2: Shri Punjaram W. Wankhede, R/o Belkhed, Post Belkhed, Tah: Umarkhed, Distt- Yawatmal (MS).1418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD (Dated: 20th February, 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 Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank Umarkhed Branch and their workman, Shri. Punjaram Waghu Wankhede for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/86/2009 (IR(B-I)) dated 13.05.2010, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank Umarkhed Branch in terminating the services of Shri Punjaram Waghu Wankhede w.e.f. 24.03.2009 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. N.W. Almelkar is accidently present today before the Court. Otherwise both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 24.02.2015 i.e. near about ten years. Although, petitioner as well as respondent have filed their respective statement of claim and written statement. Petitioner has also filed affidavit as evidence and some documents have been filed by the petitioner but petitioner has not come before the Court to prove these documents as well as contents of the affidavit and statement of claim. Petitioner is not attending and responding the Court since long back. Meaning thereby, he is not interested to contest the case. Evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the claim of petitioner. Claim of petitioner is not proved. so it is closed. Hence, it is ordered: ORDER The action of the management of Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank Umarkhed Branch in terminating the services of Shri Punjaram Waghu Wankhede w.e.f. 24.03.2009 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 556.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj केन्रीय लोक जनमाचर् जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (a25/2007) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 42011/115/2006- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD their workmen. [No. L-42011/115/2006- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/25/2007 Date: 07.03.2025. Party No.1: The Executive Engineer, CPWD, Nasik Central Division, Govt. Security Printing Press Area,[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1419 V/s. Party No.2: Shri Balaji S. Jadhav, Krushna Nagar, Mudhked, Teh. Mudhked – 431806 Nanded. AWARD (Dated: 07th March, 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 CPWD and their workman Shri. Balaji Shankarrao Jadhav for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/115/2006 (IR(DU)) dated 03.05.2007, with the following schedule:- “Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the management of CPWD and the claimant Shri Balaji Shankarrao Jadhav? If yes, whether the action of the management in terminating his services w.e.f. July, 2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 23/10/2015. Although, petitioner and respondent have filed their respective statement of claim and written statement. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come before the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as the contents of the statement of claim. No other evidence has been adduced by the petitioner till date. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want 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 in terminating his services w.e.f. July, 2005 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 557.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीर् बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vucq a/k es a fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn eas औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV (vkbZ Vh dsl u a a03/1994 lh vkbZ ,l u a 54/2014 ) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/96/93- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025 S.O. 557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. IT Case No. 3/1994,CIS No. 54/2014) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen. [No. L-12012/96/93- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director1420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Presiding Officer : Rekha Bhargava, RJS (DJ Cadre) Central IT Case No. : 3/1994 CIS No. : 54/2014 Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k dzekad ,y&12012@96@93& vkbZ-vkj-¼ch&1½ fnukad 19-07-1993 &&& Jh jkl fogkjh 'kekZ iq= Jh foV~Bynkl 'kkL=h] loksZRre vkS"k/kky;] ctfj;k] lokbZ ek/kksiqj }kjk HkVukxj Hkou] vkn'kZ uxj&,] lokbZ ek/kksiqjA &&& izkFkhZ v/;{k] cM+ksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] lokbZ ek/kksiqj ¼vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dk cM+ksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad eas foy; gks tku s ds dkj.k ½ &&& vizkFkhZ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh vkj0lh0 tSu vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh :fiu dkyk Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je e=a ky; dh mijksDr vkKk dzekad ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk gS A "Whether the action of the management of Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sawai Madhopur in terminating the services of shri Ras Bihari Sharma, Clerk-Cum-Cashier w.e.f. 21-5-90 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?" izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr vikzFkhZ cSad esa 20-6-83 dks DydZ&de&dSf'k;j ds in ij gqbZ FkhA vizkFkhZ u s fnukad 21-5-90 ds vkns'k }kjk izkFkhZ dks vuqfpr o voS/k rjhds ls lsokeqDr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd og 11-2-89 dks viuh vLoLFkrk ds dkj.k izkFkZuk i= nds j lokbZek/kksiqj vk x;k Fkk vkSj yxkrkj vLoLFk jgu s ds dkj.k M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gks ldk] ftlds fy;s mlus le;&le; ij vodk'k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;s fdUrq mldk vodk'k Lohd`r ugha fd;k x;kA fnukad 11-6-91 dks izkFkhZ dks jftLVMZ Mkd ls mldk lsokefqDr vkns'k fnukad 21-5-90 izkIr gqvkA mDr vkns'k ls iwoZ mls dfFkr vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-90 izkIr ugha gqvk D;ksfad mlu s fnukad 15-2-89 dks viuk vkokl cny fy;k Fkk ftldh lwpuk le; ij cSad dks n s nh Fkh fdUrq tkucw>dj cSad }kjk iqjku s irs ij i= O;ogkj fd;k x;kA pawfwd izkFkhZ ogka jgrk gh ugha Fkk blfy;s i= ysus ls euk djus dk iz'u gh iSnk ugha gksrkA bl izdkj mls dHkh Hkh vkjksi i= dh rkehy ugha gqbZ vkSj iz'kklu u s v[kckj es a bl ckcr~ dksbZ lwpuk Hkh izdkf'kr ugh a dh vkSj ,drjQk tkap dk;Zokgh dj mls lsokeqDr dj fn;kA lsokefqDr ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;kA izkFkhZ dks ;wfu;u dk inkf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k 'kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds mn~n's ;[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1421 ls lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA inkf/kdkjh cuus ds ckn mldk 10 ckj LFkkukarj.k Hkh blh mn~ns'; ls fd;k x;k FkkA var es a lsokefqDr vkns'k dks vikLr dj fiNys osru lfgr lsok eas cgky fd;s tkus o lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk lHkh ykHk fnyk;s tku s dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;s tku s dk fuosnu fd;k gSA foi{kh cSad dh vksj ls LVVs esVa vkWQ Dyse dk tokc is'k dj izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr o LFkkukarj.k ds rF; dks Lohdkj djrs gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ fulwjk 'kk[kk eas fnukad 20-1-89 ls dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj fnukad 11-2-89 ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr gks x;kA izkFkhZ dks ckj&ckj M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ jftLVMZ Mkd ls uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA mlds ckotwn izkFkhZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj u gh dksbZ mRrj HkstkA izkFkhZ dks mldh vuiq fLFkfr ds laca/k es a cSad ds deZpkjh o`Un lsok fofu;e 1982 ds fu;e 22 ds rgr vuq'kklu Hkax djus ds dkj.k mlds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap djkbZ xbZA tkap ds nkSjku Jfed dks jftLVMZ Mkd ls uksfVl Hksts x;s tks fjQ~;wTw M dh fjiksVZ ds lkFk ykSVsA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) ik;s vkSj vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh us vkns'k fnukad 21-5-90 ds }kjk deZpkjh o`Un lsok fofu;eks a eas iznRr 'kfDr;ks a ds rgr mls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ fcuk lwpuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s viuh M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks mlds }kjk Hksts i= fnukad 24-2-88 ds vuqlkj crk; s ir s ij i= O;ogkj fd;kA mlds ckn mlu s irk cnyu s ds laca/k eas dksbZ lwpuk cSad dks ugh a nhA cSad }kjk izsf"kr uksfVl fjQ;wTM dh fjiksVZ ds lkFk ykSV vk;s rks v[kckj eas lk;k djoku s dh dksbZ vko';drk gh ugha FkhA cSad }kjk tkap izfrosnu Hksts tku s ds ckn Hkh fu/kkZfjr vof/k es a dksbZ vihy izLrqr ugha dhA Jfed ds LFkkukarj.k dk iz'u bl okn ls lacaf/kr ugh a gSA var eas lsokefqDr vkn's k mfpr ,oa oS/k gksus ls LVsVesVa vkWQ Dyes [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk fnukad 24-1-96 ds izkFkZuk i= ds tfj;s tkap ls lacaf/kr lwpuk dh jftLVªh ftl LFkku ij Hksth xbZ] ogka ij izkFkhZ Jfed jgrk gh ugh a Fkk] bl fcUnq dks r; djus gsrq vkn’sk fnukad 28-7-97 }kjk lk{; dh vuqefr nh tkus ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a Jfed ijhf{kr gqvk rFkk foi{kh cSad dh vksj ls lk{; eas loZJh dY;k.k izlkn caly] ujflag yky 'kekZ ijhf{kr gq;sA U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 07-05-2005 }kjk mHk; i{kks a dh lk{; ds vk/kkj izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk Mkd ysus ls badkj djuk o vkjksi i= dh izksij rkehy ekuh xbZA vkjksi i= dh izksij rkehy ls iwoZ gh tkap vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr fd;s tku]s tkap vf/kdkj }kjk foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k dk jksy vnk fd;s tku]s nLrkostks a ij tkap vf/kdkjh us fcuk izekf.kr fd;s fo’okl fd;s tku]s tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr ugh a fn;s tkus o lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;s tku s ds vk/kkj ij Jfed ds fo:) dh xbZ ?kjys w tkap dk;Zokgh dks v'kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkn’sk fnukad 27-07-2007 }kjk vizkFkhZ vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dk cMksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad esa foy; gks tku s ls cM+ksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;kA vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkn's k fnukad 7-5-2005 ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ,l-ch- flfoy fjV fiVhlu la[;k 6568@2005 is’k dh xbZ ftles a ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkn's k fnukad 14-05-2007 }kjk vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xbZA ftlds fo:) vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.M ihB eas Mh-ch- Lis'ky vihy fjV la[;k 1010@2007 is'k dh xbZA ftles a ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkn's k fnukad 18-02-2008 }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,dy ihB ds vkns'k fnukad 14-05-2007 dh fdz;kfUofr dks vihy ds fuLrkj.k rd LFkfxr dj fn;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.M ihB }kjk vkns’k fnukad 11-10-2017 }kjk vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk izLrqr mDr vihy [kkfjt dh xbZA tkap dk;Zokgh ds v’kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf"kr gksus ij vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk vkjksi U;k;ky; eas lkfcr djus gsrq lk{; is’k djus dh izkFkZuk ij U;k;ky; }kjk Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus gsrq lk{; is'k dju s dh vuqefr nh xbZA Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus gsrq vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls lk{; eas Jh xsna k flag 'ks[kkor ijhf{kr gq;s gSa] ftuls izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh xbZA izkFkhZ jklfogkjh }kjk viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k es a dFku fd;k gS fd mldh izFke fu;qfDr cSad eas fnukad 20-6-83 dks gqbZ FkhA fnukad 17-10-89 dks feF;k vkjksi i= fn;k x;kA fnukad 15-2-89 dks vLoLFk gksus ds dkj.k M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugh a gks ldrk FkkA vodk'k gsrq izkFkZuk i= o fpfdRlk izek.k vizkFkhZ laLFkku dks Hksts x;sA vodk’k izkFkZuk i= o ;wihlh dh jlhn o fpfdRlk izek.k i= dh izfr izn’kZ MoY;w&2 yxk;r 7 gSA lkFk gh viu s LFkkukarj.k gsrq fpfdRlk izek.k i= lfgr ,d izkFkZuk i= fn;k Fkk ftldh izfr izn’kZ MoY;&w 9] fpfdRlk izek.k i= izn’kZ MoY;&w 10 o jftLVMZ ,-Mh- jlhn izn'kZ MoY;w&11 gSA lkFk gh dFku fd;k gS fd og dHkh LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr ugha jgk cfYd vLoLFk gksus ds dkj.k mifLFkr ugh a gks ldkA Jfed u s dFku fd;k gS fd mls lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds yxHkx 25 o"kZ rd csjkstxkj jguk rFkk o"kZ 2014 eas ,d O;kikj izkjEHk djuk tks Hkh ykHk ugha gksus ds dkj.k can djuk iM+k] dFku fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ls ftjg dh xbZA ftjg ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd izn’kZ ,e&1 eq>s dHkh izkIr ugh a gqvkA eSa fnukad 11-2-89 ls vuqifLFkr py jgk Fkk] mlds ckn dgk gS fd vodk'k izkFkZuk i= nus s ds ckn vuqifLFkr gqvk Fkk] tks izn'kZ MoY;w&1 gS] ftl ij fdlh ikorh ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA ;g izkFkZuk i= ;wihlh ds ek/;e ls Hkstk Fkk] ftldh jlhn izn'kZ MoY;w&3 gSA ejs s izkFkZuk i= vodk'k Lohd`r djus dk vkns'k ugh a gqvk FkkA izn’kZ ,e&2 ij , ls ch ejs k irk ugha gS D;ksfad fnukad 4-4-89 dks eSa bl ir s ij ugha jgrk FkkA eaS Qjojh 1989 ds ckn fuokl LFkku cnyu s ds laca/k esa lwpuk izca/ku dks nh Fkh] ftldh izfr izn'kZ MoY;&w 1 gSA vkjksi i= o"kZ 1991 eas u;s ir s ij feyk FkkA1422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] eSa dHkh tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gqvkA izn'kZ ,e&3@1] 5] 8 eq>s izkIr ugha gqvkA izn'kZ ,e&19 ejs h fu;qfDr gsrq Hkjk x;k izkFkZuk i= gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e&20 eas tks irk vafdr gS ogh irk esjs izkFkZuk i= es a vafdr gSA izn'kZ ,e&21 ij tks irk fy[kk gS ogh irk gSA izn’kZ ,e&19 esa tks , ls ch irk vafdr gS] mlh ij jgrk gwAa ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e&4 yxk;r 12 rd eas tks ir s of.kZr gS oks izn’kZ ,e&19 ij ogh irk gSA ;g ogh ir s gSa tks izn'kZ ,e&21 ij , ls ch vafdr gSA eaSus izn’kZ ,e&4 yxk;r 12 es a iksLVy foHkkx }kjk fjQ~;wty dk xyr fjekdZ yxku s ds laca/k es a dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dh FkhA ejs k vodk'k Lohd`r gqvk ;k ugh]a irk ughAa eSa chekj FkkA eaS 12 Qjojh 1989 ls dc rd chekj jgk] eq>s ;kn ugha gSA eaSus Bhd gksus ds ckn M~;wVh ij mifLFkfr ugh a nh D;ksfad blls igys gh eq>s izn'kZ,e&17 vkn's k esjs u;s ir s ij izkIr gks x;k FkkA izn'kZ ,e&17 ds f[kykQ l{ke vf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy is’k ugh a dhA izn’kZ ,e&11 ls ,e&16 gkftjh jftLVj gSa ftues a ejs h mifLFkfr ntZ ugh a gSA eaS fnukad 11-2-89 dks NqV~Vh nsdj x;k Fkk mlds ckn cSad okyks a u s ih dks dksVdj , cuk;k gqvk gSA ;g lgh gS fd ejs h lsokefqDr cSad ds izko/kkuks a ds vuq:i dh xbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd ejs s Dyes o 'kiFk i= eas izn'kZ ,e&17 ds ckj s eas ugha fy[kk x;kA lsokefqDr vkns'k eq>s twu eas feyk FkkA esjs ?kj dk [kpZ esjh ifRu flykbZ dk dke djds o esjs }kjk NkVs k&eksVk dk;Z djds gksrk FkkA ;g xyr gS fd eaS vkS"k/kky; ij nckbZ cukus dk dk;Z djrk gksAa ;g lgh gS fd jksx izek.k i= fnukad 15-2-89 dks fn;k x;kA vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg xsna kyky u s viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd og vizkFkhZ cSad dh ikjyh] lokbZek/kksiqj 'kkkk eas ofj"B izca/kd ds in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk o"kZ 1989 eas vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ds iz/kku dk;kZy; eas vf/kdkjh ds :i eas dk;Zjr FkkA izkFkhZ Jfed dks tkjh vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89 eas izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds :i es a fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks O;fDrxr :i ls tkurk gwawA vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dk foy; dsUnz ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 1-1-2013 ds i'pkr~ cMksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad eas gks x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed fnukad 20-01-89 dks rkRdkyhu cSad dh fulwjk 'kk[kk eas dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk fnukad 11-02-89 ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgk gSA foi{kh cSad }kjk le;&le; ij jftLVMZ i=ks a o vU; ek/;eksa ls izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij gkftj gksus gsrq lwpuk,a Hksth xbZA fnukad 4-4-89] 1-8-89] 4-8-89] 9-8-89 dks Hksts jftLVMZ i= tks fjQ~;wty fjekdZ ds lkFk okfil ykSV]s ftu ij izkFkhZ }kjk fn;k x;k irk vafdr gS] ds i=] izkfIr Lohd`fr jlhn s o fyQkQs izn’kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e&7 gSA izkFkhZ ds fnukad 11-2-89 ls 17-10-89 rd yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgu s ij ,d vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89 izn’kZ ,e&8 tfj;s ;wihlh Hkstk x;kA izn’kZ ,e&9 }kjk tkap djkbZ tkus gsrq eq>s izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA vkjksi i= Mkd foHkkx dh fjQ~;wty fjiksVZ ds lkFk okfil ykSVk] ftldk izn'kZ ,e&10 gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk vusd i= tkjh djus ds ckn Hkh Jfed tkap eas mifLFkr ugh a gqvk vkSj Hksts x;s i= Mkd foHkkx dh fjQ~;wty fjiksVZ ds lkFk okfil ykSVsA Jfed dk gkftjh jftLVj dh izn'kZ ,e&11 yxk;r ,e&16 gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk tkap fjiksVZ fnukad 28-4-90 izLrqr dj vkjksi fl) ik;s x;s gSaA Jfed dks vkn’sk fnukad 21-5-90 ds vkn’sk }kjk lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k tks izn'kZ ,e&17 gSA ftls izkFkhZ u s yus s ls badkj fd;k x;kA izn’kZ ,e&18 fyQkQs ij fjQ~;wty dk fjekdZ gSA Jfed dks mlds }kjk crk; s x;s ir s ij gh uksfVlst Hksts x;s gSA Jfed }kjk Hksts x;s dksbZ i= vkfn izn’kZ MoY;w 1 yxk;r 5 dHkh Hkh foi{kh laLFkku dks izkIr ugha gq;sA izkFkhZ loksZRre vkS"k/kky; ctfj;k es a yxkrkj ykHk dk dk;Z dj jgk gSA ftjg ds nkSjku xokg xsna k flag 'ks[kkor u s dFku fd;k gS fd og dHkh fulwjk 'kk[kk eas inLFkkfir ugha jgk rFkk u gh mlu s 'kk[kk dk izkfIr jftLVj n[s kkA izkFkhZ }kjk Hksts x;s i= 'kk[kk es a izkIr gq;s ;k ugh]a og ugha crk ldrkA izn'kZ ,e&1 ls ,e&19 nLrkost mlds }kjk rS;kj ugha fd;s vkSj u gh mlds mu ij gLrk{kj gSA og rks dsoy izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds :i eas c;ku nsus vk;k gSA fulwjk 'kk[kk eas ml le; ds0ih0 caly 'kk[kk izca/kd Fks] ftuls Jfed }kjk Hksts x;s i= o fpfdRlk izek.k i= izkIr gq;s ;k ugha] ds ckj s eas iwNk Fkk] mUgksua s bldh fjiksVZ nh Fkh] tks eq>s ugha nh] gSM vkfQl eas v/;{k dks Hksth FkhA og fjiksVZ i=koyh ij is'k ugh a gSA izn'kZZ MoY;w&4 ij cSad dh eksgj gSA ;g i= fdl 'kk[kk dks Hkstk vkSj fdlus fy;k] irk ugha gSA izn'kZ ,e&11 ls 16 eas izkFkhZ dks dosy 11 Qjojh dks vuiq fLFkr crk;k gS blds vykok dHkh Hkh vuqifLFkr ugh a crk;k x;k gSA Jfed ds loksZRre vkS"k/kky; esa dk;Z djus ds laca/k es a dksbZ izek.k i= is'k ugha fd;k gS vkSj u gh e>q s bl laca/k eas tkudkjh gS] ;g tkudkjh eq>s izca/kd u s nh FkhA mHk; i{kks a dh cgl lquh xbZA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk nkSjkus cgl dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsokeqfD vkjvkjch LVkQ lfoZl jxs qys'ku 1982 ds fu;r 30 ds vUrxZr dh xbZ gS tcfd Jfed dks vkjksi i= vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad deZpkjh c`Un lsok fu;e 1982 ds vUrxZr fn;k x;k] tks izkjEHk ls gh 'kwU; ekuk tkuk pkfg;s vkSj vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls u gh lsokfu;e gh izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ Jfed vizkFkhZ ds le{k vihy is’k fd;s fcuk lh/ks gh viuk fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr mBk ldrk gSA Jfed ds fo:) fcuk iwokZueq fr ds] fcuk vodk’k Lohd`r djk; s vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS tcfd izkFkhZ }kjk vodk’k ds fy;s vkosnu gh ugha fd;k x;k cfYd izkFkhZ chekj gksus ds dkj.k M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gks ldk ftlds fy;s vodk'k gsrq fpfdRlk izek.k i= lfgr vkosnu vizkFkhZ dks izsf"kr fd;s x;s Fks tks cSad dks izkIr gks x;sA mifLFkfr iaftdk izn'kZ ,e&11 ls ,e&16 rd esa Hkh izkFkhZ dh vuqifLFkfr ugha n’kkZbZ xbZ gSA Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus dk Hkkj fu;kstd ij gS vkSj fu;kstd dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls Jfed ij vkjksi fl) ugha gksrk gSA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls tks nLrkost is'k gq;s gSa] og vizkFkhZ ds xokg }kjk u gh tkjh fd;s x;s gSa vkSj u gh muds ckj s eas mls dksbZ tkudkjh gh jgh gS rks ,sl s nLrkostks a dks lk{; eas ugha i<k tk ldrkA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls egRoiw.kZ lk{; tks rkRdkyhu cSad ds 'kk[kk izca/kd o iz/kku dk;kZy; ds vf/kdkjh Fks] mudks lk{; eas is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dHkh Hkh LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr ugha jgk gS cfYd viuh chekjh ds dkj.k vuqifLFkr jgk gS ftls viuh lk{; ls o eSMhdy izek.k ls fl) fd;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed 25 o"kZ rd csjkstxkj jgk[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1423 gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds xsuQqy jkstxkj eas jgu s dks fl) djus dk Hkkj vizkFkhZ ij gS] tks og fl) ugh adj ik;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ dh lsokefqDr dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf"kr dj fiNyk iw.kZ osru ,oa HkRr s e; ,fj;j fnyk;s tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk viu s rdksZa ds leFkZu eas fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s gSa & 1- 1999¼81½ ,Q,yvkj 188 lqizhe dksVZ] uhrk dify’k cuke yscj dksVZ o vU;A 2- 1999 ¼6½ ,l,yvkj 740 bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky;] ';kelqanj feJk cuke yscj dksVZ 3- 2011¼129½ ,Q,yvkj 787 lqizhe dksVZ] dksy bf.M;k fyfeVMs cuke vuark 'kkg o vU;A 4- 1984 ycs vkbZ lh 1694 lqizhe dksVZ t;Hkxoku cuke ,-lh-lh- cSad fy0 5- 2004 ¼103½ ,Q,yvkj 39 fganqLrku isVªksfy;e dkW0 fy0 cuke ;’koar jMs dj o vU;A 6- 2008¼3½ MoY;w ,y lh 157 nsoh flag cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0 o vU;A 7- 1997¼1½ lh,yvkj 361 vkuan panz izLVh cuke mMhlk ekbfuxa dkW0 fy0 o vU;A 8- 1971¼23½ ,Q,yvkj 273 lqizhe dksVZ] cjys h bySDVªhflVh lIykbZ dkW0 cuke Jfed 9- 2019¼160½ ,Q,yvkj 717 iwj.kpan cuke MhVhlhA 10- 1981 MoY;w,y,u ¼;wlh½457 ve`ryky cuke LVVs vkWQ jkt0 11- 2019¼161½ ,Q,yvkj 850 MhVhlh cuke jktohj flag 12- 2000 ,lhlhlh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 85 lqizhe dksVZ] gjn~okjh yky cuke LVVs vkWQ ;wih o vU;A 13- 2003¼4½ ,y,y,u 804 je’sk dqekj cuke vkj,lvkjVhlh 14- 2014¼6½ lqizhje 243 j?kqohj flag cuke gfj;k.kk jksMost 15- 2012¼3½ ,llhlh178 d`".kdkar ch ijekj cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;A 16- 2009 ¼1½ ,y,u,u 477 ,e0ih0 LVVs bySfDVªd cksMZ o vU; cuke ,l-ds- ;kno 17- 2015¼1½ ,llhlh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 251 NSy flg cuke ,ethch xzkeh.k cSad ikyh o vU;A 18- 1997¼1½ MoY;w ,y lh 734 Nhrjey cuke LVVs vkWQ jkt0 o vU;A 19- 1999¼2½ vkj,yMoY;w 1197 Hkaoj flag cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0 20- 2013 ¼139½ ,Q,yvkj 541 lqizhe dksVZ] nhikyh qxqaMq lokZls cuke dzkafrtwfu;j v/;kidA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls mlds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk cgl dh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk cSad }kjk tkjh uksfVlst dks yus s ls badkj fd;k gSA Jfed ds uksfVl fjQ~;wTM fjiksVZ ds lkFk ykSVs gS rFkk U;k;kf/kdj.k u s Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA Jfed }kjk irk cny s tku s ds laca/k eas dksbZ lwpuk vizkFkhZ cSad dks ugha nh xbZ vkSj u gh cSad dks feyhA izkFkhZ Jfed fcuk lwpuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk; s viuh M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgk gS tks vizkFkhZ cSad ds lsokfu;e deZpkjh lsoko`Un fofu;eks a ds rgr fu;ekuqlkj lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg u s Hkh Jfed dh fnukad 11-02-89 ls lsoki`Fkd fd;s tku s rd dh vof/k es a fcuk iwoZ lwpuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk; s vuqifLFkr jguk fl) fd;k gSA Jfed dh vuiq fLFkfr ds laca/k eas mifLFkr iaftdk izn’kZ ,e&11 yxk;r ,e&16 iznf'kZr gqbZ gS rFkk Jfed dks tkjh uksfVlst Hkh iznf'kZr gq;s gSa ftlls lkfcr gS fd Jfed dks laiw.kZ tkudkjh gksus ds ckotwn uksfVl ugha fy;s x;s vkSj u gh viuh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvkA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk izLrqr LVsVeasV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk viu s rdksa Z ds leFkZu es a fuEu U;kf;d n"`Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gSa& 1- 1995¼70½ ,Q,yvkj 789 LVsV vkWQ ;wih cuke ,-ds- feJkA 2- ¼1991½1 ,llhlh 588 ;fwu;u vkWQ bfM;k o vU; cuke eks- jetku [kkaA 3- ¼2008½11 ,llhlh 502 fgekpy izns'k VªkaliksVZ dkW- cuke ds-lh- jkBhA 4- ¼1996½1 ,llhlh 302 LVVs vkWQ ;wih o vU; cuke v'kksd dqekj flag o vU;A 5- 2001¼88½ ,Q,yvkj 177 uVjktu cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh o vU;A 6- 2001¼89½ ,Q,yvkj 1070 tloar flag cuke LVVs vkWQ jkt- 7- ¼2005½7 ,llhlh 597 us’kuy QVhZykbZtj fy-cuke ih-ds- 'kekZ 8- ¼2005½13 ,llhlh 228 ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU; cuke xyq ke eksgEen HkV~V 9- flfoy vihy la[;k 480@1973 fu.kZ; fnukad 12-3-1985 'kadjnkl cuke ;fwu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;A eSau s mHk; i{kks a }kjk fn;s x;s rdksa Z ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj’khyu fd;k x;kA1424 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89 izn’kZ ,e&8 eas fnukad 11-02-89 ls yxkrkj fnukad 17-10-89 rd fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqKk izkIr fd;s ,oa fcuk iwoZ vodk’k Lohd`r djk; s drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgu s dk vkjksi gSA mDr vkjksi i= izkFkhZ Jfed dks vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad o`Un lsok fofu;e 1982 ds fu;e 30¼1½ ds vUrxZr nqjkpj.k ekuk gSA mDr vkjksi ds laca/k eas izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh djrs gq;s tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk mDr vkjksi fl) ik;s tku s ij vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk vkns'k fnukad 21-05-1990 izn'kZ ,e&17 }kjk vkjvkjch LVkQ lfoZl jxs qy’sku 1982 ds fu;e 30 ds vUrxZr lsoki`Fkd ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89 ds laca/k eas dh xbZ ?kjys w tkap dk;Zokgh dks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 7-5-2005 }kjk v'kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) mDr vkjksi fl) djus gsrq lk{; is’k djus dh vuqefr ekaxs tkus ij lk{; is'k djus dh vuqefr nh xbZ gSA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus gsrq Jh xsna k flag 'ks[kkor ijhf{kr gqvk gSA nkSjkus cgl izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a fu;kstd ij gS vkSj vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls Jfed ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi fl) ugh a gksrs gSa D;ksfad tks nLrkost lk{; eas is'k gq;s gSa muds ckj s eas xokg dks dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS vkSj u gh mlds }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2004 (103) FLR 39 Hindustan petroleum Corp. vs Yashwant rekkar & ors., 2008(3) WLC 157 Devi singh vs State of Raj., 1997 I CLR 361 Ananda Chandra brusty vs Orissa Mining Corp. Ltd. & ors. es a fofHkUu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fofuf’pr fd;k x;k gS fd vkjksih ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksika s dks fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a fu;kstd dk gSA fu;kstd dh vksj ls tks lk{; xsnk flag 'ks[kkor ijhf{kr gqvk gS mlds }kjk viuh izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd og fulwjk 'kk[kk eas dHkh inLFkkfir ugha jgkA fulwjk 'kk[kk dk i= izkfIr dk jftLVj dHkh Hkh ugha n[s kkA izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e&19 dksbZ Hkh nLrkost mlds }kjk rS;kj ugh a fd;k x;k vkSj u gh mu ij mlds gLrk{kj gS vkSj bu nLrkostks a ds laca/k eas O;fDrxr tkudkjh ugha gksuk crk;k gSA mlds }kjk dFku fd;k gS fd og tkap ds nkSjku izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh Fkk vkSj blh vk/kkj ij c;ku n s jgk gS tcfd fulwjk 'kk[kk eas rRle; ds-ih- caly 'kk[kk izca/kd gksuk crk;k gSA vr% vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls tks lk{; is’k gqbZ gS mls nLrkostks a ds laca/k eas dksbZ tkudkjh ugh a jgh gS vkSj u gh mlds }kjk oks nLrkots tkjh fd;s x;s gSa tcfd Jfed }kjk viuh lk{; ds nkSjku viuh vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k eas eSMhdy izek.k i= ,oa lwpuk,a vizkFkhZ cSad dks Hkstuk crk;k gS ftudh izfr;ka Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k lk{; ds nkSjku iznf’kZr gqbZ gSaA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk Jfed dh vuiq fLFkfr ds laca/k eas dksbZ lwpuk vizkFkhZ cSad dks izkIr gksus ls badkj fd;k gS yfsdu vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls tks xokg is’k fd;k x;k gS og rRle; fulwjk 'kk[kk es a inLFkkfir ugh a Fkk vkSj Jfed ij fulwjk 'kk[kk eas fnukad 11-2-89 ls vuqifLFkr jgu s dk vkjksi gS vkSj Jfed }kjk dksbZ lwpuk, a Hkh cSad dks Hksth xbZ gks rks bl laca/k eas fulwjk 'kk[kk eas inLFkkfir dksbZ deZpkjh gh crk ldrk Fkk tcfd vizkFkhZ lk{kh Jh xsna k flag u s i= izkfIr dk jftLVj Hkh dHkh Hkh n[s ks tku s ls badkj fd;k gSA Jfed }kjk viuh vuiq fLFkfr ds laca/k eas lwpuk,a vizkFkhZ cSad dks tfj;s ;wihlh Hksth xbZ gSa] tks izn’kZ MoY;w&3] 4] 5 MoY;w&8 o MoY;w&11 U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k iznf’kZr gqbZ gSa rFkk vuiq fLFkfr ds laca/k eas eSMhdy izek.k i= izn’kZ MoY;&w 2] MoY;w&6] 7 o MoY;w&10 is’k gqvk gS] tks l{ke fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2019¼160½ ,Q,yvkj 717 iwj.k pan cuke MhVhlh eas ekuuh; nsgyh mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB }kjk Jfed ds lsoki`Fkd vkns’k ds vuqeksnu izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 33¼2½¼ch½ dks Lohdkj fd;s tku s ds ,dyihB ds vkns’k dks izca/ku }kjk fo’oluh; Lor=a lk{; is’k ugha djus ds vk/kkj ,dyihB ds vkns'k dks vikLr fd;k x;k gSA U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1981 MoY; w ,y ,u ¼;w lh½ 457 jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB }kjk ;g fofu’p; fn;k gS fd ;fn dksbZ nLrkost ekey s ls lacaf/kr rF; dks lkfcr djus gsrq is’k fd;k tkrk gS rks mlds y[s kd dks izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg, ;k mlds laca/k eas mldk gyQukek fn;k tkuk pkfg;s yfsdu gLrxr ekey s eas tks nLrkost Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi lkfcr djus gsrq is'k fd;s x;s gSa mudks tkjh djus okys fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks lk{; eas is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj tks lk{; eas xokg is'k gqvk gS mlds }kjk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mls bu nLrkostks a ds laca/k eas dksbZ O;fDrxr tkudkjh ugh a gSA tcfd Jfed }kjk viuh vuiq fLFkfr ds laca/k eas lwpuk,a vizkFkhZ cSad dks Hksts tku s o vuqifLFkfr ds ckcr~ eSMhdy izek.k i= is'k fd;s x;s gSaA ftuds vk/kkj ij ;g ugh a ekuk ldrk fd Jfed LosPNk ls viu s drZO; ls vuiq fLFkr jgk gksA vr% fu;sktd dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls Jfed ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vuqifLFkfr dk vkjksi fl) ugha gksrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) tkjh lsoki`Fkd vkn’sk fnukad 21-5-90 vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksus ls vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2013 ¼139½ ,Q,yvkj 541 nhikyh xqaMq lokZls cuke dzkafrtwfu;j v/;kid o vU; izLrqr djrs gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd Jfed xsuQqy ,EiykW;easV eas jgk gks ;g fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a vizkFkhZ ij gS tks og fl) ugha dj ik;k gSA bl laca/k eas izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd Jfed 25 o"kZ csjkstxkj jgk gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk viuh lk{; ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk o"kZ 2014 es a O;kikj izkjEHk fd;k ysfdu mleas ykHk ugh a gksus ds dkj.k can djuk iM+k tcfd bl laca/k eas dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugh a dh gS fd mls O;kikj ds nkSjku dksbZ ykHk ugh a gksus ds dkj.k O;kikj can djuk iM+k gksA ftjg ds nkSjku Hkh Jfed us Lohdkjk gS fd mlds }kjk ?kj [kp Z iRuh ds }kjk flykbZ dk;Z djds o mlds }kjk NksVk&eksVk dk;Z djds fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dk bl 25 o"kZ dh vof/k ds nkSjku iw.kZr;k csjkstxkj ugha jgk gS cfYd mlds }kjk NkVs k&eksVk dk;Z fd;k tkuk rFkk O;kikj Hkh 'kq: fd;k tkuk Lo;a lk{; ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gSaA fdlh Hkh f'kf{kr O;fDr dk ,d yEch vof/k rd csjkstxkj jguk vLokHkkfod gSA bu lHkh rF;ks a ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ks a dks n[s kr s gq;s izkFkhZ Jfed dks cSd ostst ds :i eas 40 izfr'kr jkf'k fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarks a esa izfrikfnr fl)kar gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ks a ls fHkUurk j[ku s ds dkj.k gLrxr ekeys es a pLik ugha gksrs gSaA[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1425 mijksDr foopus ds QyLo:i izdj.k eas fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA dsUnzh; vkS|kfsxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj ¼j[s kk HkkxZo½ U;k;k/kh'k vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 13-12-2024 dks [kqys U;k;ky; es a fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks Hkkjr ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 558.—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 esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्डं ीगढ़-II ds iapkV (04/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12012/17/2014- vkbZ vkj (बी-II)] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen. [No. L-12012/17/2014/- IR(B- II)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh (Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant). ID No.04/2014 Registered on:-22.04.2014 Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Badri Nath Sharma, C/o Sh. R. K Singh Parmar, Punjab INTUC, 211-L, Village Brari, PO Pratap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar, Punjab. -------- Applicant Versus Punjab National Bank, Regional Collection Cetnre, 2nd Floor, Railway Raod, Jalandhar City, Punjab. ----Management Present:- Ms. Rana Ghuman, AR for applicant. Sh. Anshul Pareek, AR for management. Award : 18.02.2025 Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/17/2014 (IR(B-II)) Dated 04.04.2014, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ID Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-1426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] “Whether action of termination of service o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 02.09.2013 by the management of Punjab national Bank, Jalandhar is legal, just and valid? What relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?” 1. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the he served w.e.f. 01.01.2005 to 01.09.2013 with the management as Cheque Collector and used to collect and deliver the daily dak and cheques in the branch offices as directed by the management. On 02.09.2013, the applicant reported for duty as usual but denied to duty and was told verbally that in his place, management had engaged new hand and his services are not required henceforth without giving him in writing. The management had recommended time and again to continue the applicant in service along with the others to the Head office as according to the branch office, his services were required and his work and conduct was quite satisfactory and there was no complaint against the work and conduct of the applicant. The applicant was drawing Rs.15000/- per month as wages on the date of his termination. The salary was paid to the applicant in his bank account by the management. Neither charge-sheet was served, nor any show cause notice and inquiry was held against the applicant, which is against the provisions of natural justice. The management had retained juniors to the applicant in service and who are continuing in service in violation of Section 25-G of the ID Act. The applicant had rendered more than 240 days in each completed year of service proceeding the date of termination. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the applicant. It is maintained that termination is illegal, void and bad in law and it is prayed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. Notice of the claim petition was also given to the management, who filed reply thereof, maintaining therein that the present reference is without jurisdiction on the ground that the present matter does not all fall within the ambit of Section 2-A of the ID Act. It is denied that the applicant was serving w.e.f. 24.09.1992 till 30.09.2013 as cheque collector with the management. The services of the applicant were utilized purely on need basis for providing courier service at Regional Processing Centre, Jalandhar (hereinafter called as RPC), at a consolidated mutually agreed amount of Rs.7133/-, which was increased later in view of the price rise. The arrangement was made locally by the incumbent of RPC. The persons providing the courier services were being paid auto rickshaw charges for the purpose. Different persons were providing services as courier during the past at agreed rates. No records of such persons have been maintained by the management. The applicant was told around the middle of August by the incumbent of the RPC to bring auto rickshaw as was agreed by him, the applicant showed his inability to do so. Accordingly, his contract was not renewed further. Thus it was the voluntary decision of the applicant to discontinue the arrangement. It is also submitted that the non renewal of the contract does not amount to retrenchment. There was no question of recommending the name of applicant to the head office or to any other office. It was upto the incumbent of RPC to make arrangement for collection of cheques from branch and return of the same with whosoever was prepared to render the service at the agreed rates. There was no need of serving charge-sheet, show cause notice or conducting inquiry against the applicant or paying him retrenchment compensation, earned leave, medical leave or deduction of EPF and there was no question of violation of Section 25-G of the ID Act as the applicant was not in the employment of the management and no employer-employee relationship ever existed between respondent and management. It is prayed that the reference be dismissed with cost. Evidence of the parties:- 3. In order to prove case, applicant filed his affidavit WW1 along with documents W1 (account statement) and W2 (ID card) and closed his evidence on 03.07.2019. Thereafter, respondent have examined Sh. Vijay Kumar Asija, Senior Manager, Circle Office, Jalandhar as MW1, who tendered her affidavit as MW1/A and thereafter, ld. counsel for management closed evidence on 09.09.2019 on behalf of management and the matter was fixed for arguments. Submissions of Applicants: 4. While arguing the case, ld. counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was working as cheque collector since 01.01.2005 till 01.09.2013. He reported on 02.09.2013, but was told verbally not to continue with the management and at that time, he was drawing salary of Rs.15000/- per month, which was paid in his bank account. He also contended that this fact has been even admitted by the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that the contractor of applicant was not renewed as he has not brought auto rickshaw, in which he was doing courier work. Applicant has also placed on record passbook Ex.W1 and ID card Ex.W2, which proves that he was in the service of management and was retrenched without retrenchment of compensation. Ld. counsel for applicant placed on record written arguments. Submissions of Respondents: 5. On the other hand. ld. counsel for respondent contended that in this case, workman was serving w.e.f. 01.01.2005 as cheque collector with the bank management and he used to collect and deliver the daily dak till 01.09.2013. His services were utilized purely on need basis and initially he was paid Rs.7133/- per month, which was increased from time to time. When he was asked to bring auto rickshaw, for which payment was being made to the applicant, applicant showed his inability, accordingly, his contract was not renewed, thus it was the voluntary decision of the applicant to discontinue his contract. Hence, the case of the applicant does not fall under Section 2A of the ID Act. Management has also placed on record written arguments prepared by ld. counsel for management.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1427 6. I have given due consideration to the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. Findings: 7. First this Tribunal is to decide is whether the applicant comes within the definition of "workman" as is defined in Section 2(S) of the Act. It is mentioned here that applicant was in service of bank w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and continuously worked till 01.09.2013 as cheque collector. In plain words the claimant was performing his duties as labourer/unskilled worker. He was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only administrative post requiring him to perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(S) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh V/s Municipal Council, Sanaur AlR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:- "The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms and 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 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 plain 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 causal employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.” 8. Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time or part time or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in employee plain language of Section 2(S) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed 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. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion, the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(S) of the Act. 9. The payment of salary by the management is admitted by the respondent in its written statement as well as in the affidavit of filed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Asija, Senior Manager, Circle Office, Jalandhar, wherein he categorically stated that workman worked on different dates as mentioned in his affidavit and was paid initially Rs. 7133/- per month, which was increased from time to time. As per applicant, he was retrenched from service on 01.09.2013. If we take one year prior to 01.09.2013 as stated by the respondent, then he had completed 240 days in the preceding year as per written statement filed by respondent in this case. 10. Admittedly, the respondent is an industry and there was non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman has already been able to prove that he worked continuously for a period of 240 days prior to his termination of his services by respondent on 01.09.2013 as he was receiving regular wages from 2005 till 2013 is proven as per statement of workman WW1. It is added here that the applicant worked as cheque collector w.e.f. 01.01.2005. Admittedly, in this case, applicant was not paid retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the ID Act. As per own case of the respondent, the contract of workman was not renewed. The said argument of the ld. counsel for the respondent is not having any force as respondent has failed to produce on record any document showing that workman was engaged on the basis of some contract. Attracting his retrenchment on the basis of completion of contract as per Section 2(oo) (bb) of the ID Act. 11. Admittedly, there is violation of Section 25-F of the Act and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.Vs Man Singh,_2012(1)_SCT 641, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement has to be given as a matter of right. Reliance can also be placed upon Jasbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009(3) SCT 790, under which it has been held that in the legal position and the Court had recent past, there had been a shift in consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may he wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation, even though termination Of an employee was in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement was held to be the prudent relief to meet the ends of justice. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as District Development Officer & Anr. V/s Satish Kantilal Amrelia, Civil Appeal Nos. 19857-19858 of 2017; decided on 28 November , 2017 has held as follow: "that the reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious, It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstatement such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose".1428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In view of above discussed above workman entitled for compensation as he was working on temporary basis intermittently. 12. Learned counsel for the workman has also argued that for rendering one year service workman should be granted Rs.1 lac per year and since the workman has worked for about 8 years and therefore compensation of Rs.8 lac be awarded to the workman in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts. 13. It is added here that in the present case workman has intermittently worked for about 8 years as cheque collector as is itself stated by the respondent and keeping in view the above discussed circumstances and case law titled as Hemant Babruvahan Parchake versus Social Welfare Officer, Somalwar Bhavan, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur and others 201 (4) AIR BomR 781, wherein for 18 months, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted as compensation, workman is granted Rs. 1,33,000/- as compensation. 14. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication. KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 559.—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 eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्डं ीगढ़- II ds iapkV (20/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)-45] सलोनी, उप जनिेिक New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.20/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh-II 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)-45] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH (Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant). ID No.20/2018 Registered on:-14.08.2018 Maya w/o Sh. Sanjay R/o H.No.182, Village Jui Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani. -------- Applicant Versus The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani. ----Management Present:- Mr. Keshav Verma, AR for applicant. Sh. S K Gupta, AR for management. Award : 06.03.2025 1. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the she served w.e.f. 05.10.2014 to 16.11.2017 with State Bank of Patiala (now State Bank of India) as sweeper. On 17.11.2017, the applicant reported for duty as usual but was told verbally that her services are not required henceforth without giving him in writing. The work and conduct of the applicant was quite satisfactory. The applicant was drawing Rs.3900/- per month as wages on the date[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1429 of her termination. The management had retained juniors to the applicant in service and who are continuing in service in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter called as ID Act). It is maintained that the management is an industry and the applicant is a workman as defined under ID Act. The applicant had rendered more than 240 days in each completed year of service proceeding the date of termination. No retrenchment compensation was paid to the applicant. It is maintained that termination is illegal, void and bad in law and it is prayed that she be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. Notice of the claim petition was also given to the management, who filed reply thereof, maintaining therein that the applicant was never appointed by the management as part time sweeper. The applicant was never issued any appointment letter by the management. The applicant was engaged for menial work as per requirement of the office and her wages were paid as per the work done by her on day to day basis. The services of the applicant were never dismissed, terminated or retrenched by the management as the applicant was never employed by the respondent on regular basis and no appointment letter was ever issued to the applicant. The applicant had not completed 240 days of service continuously in any of the preceding year. The branch manager has no power or authority to appoint any person. The bank has its own rules and regulations of appointment in the bank. No junior to the workman has been retained by the management. The workman does not fall within the definition of the workman as defined under the ID Act. It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed. Evidence of the parties:- 3. In order to prove case, applicant filed her affidavit WW1/A and closed her evidence on 02.01.2020. Thereafter, respondent have examined Sh. Mohit Dalak, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Jui, Bhiwani (Haryana) as MW1, who tendered her affidavit as MW1/A. Beside this, Mr. Babu Lal, Branch Manager, SBI Main Branch, Jui came in the Court and placed on record his affidavit and made statement that attendance register of the workman is not maintained by the management. In his affidavit, he also stated that the workman was paid her wages at daily rates for the number of days she had worked. Thereafter, ld. counsel for management closed evidence on 15.03.2023 on behalf of management and the matter was fixed for arguments. Submissions of Applicants: 4. While arguing the case, ld. counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was working as sweeper w.e.f. 05.10.2014 till 16.11.2017. After the applicant, Mr. Manoj was working as sweeper, who was engaged through contractor. No compensation and notice of termination was given to the applicant. No chargesheet or inquiry proceedings were conducted against the applicant. The branch was cleaned everyday by the applicant and nobody was doing the work of sweeper during the tenure of applicant. He further contended that the workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year prior to her retrenchment and requested that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Submissions of Respondents: 5. On the other hand. ld. counsel for respondent contended that the applicant was never appointed by the management as part time sweeper. The applicant was never issued any appointment letter by the management. The applicant was engaged for menial work as per requirement of the office and her wages were paid as per the work done by her on day to day basis. The services of the applicant were never dismissed, terminated or retrenched by the management as the applicant was never employed by the respondent on regular basis and no appointment letter was ever issued to the applicant. The applicant had not completed 240 days of service continuously in any of the preceding year. The branch manager has no power or authority to appoint any person. The bank has its own rules and regulations of appointment in the bank. No junior to the workman has been retained by the management. The workman does not fall within the definition of the workman as defined under the ID Act. It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed. Management has also placed on record written arguments prepared by ld. counsel for management. 6. I have given due consideration to the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. Findings: 7. First this Tribunal is to decide is whether the applicant comes within the definition of "workman" as is defined in Section 2(S) of the Act. It is mentioned here that applicant was in service of bank w.e.f. 05.10.2014 and continuously worked till 16.11.2017 as sweeper. This fact has been admitted by Mr. Mohit Dalak (Deputy Manager) MW1 in his cross examination, wherein, he has stated that workman had worked from 05.10.2014 to 16.11.2017 continuously. Nobody was doing the work of sweeping during the tenure of applicant, who was doing the work of sweeping. However, no appointment letter was issued to any sweeper as per the record. In plain words the claimant was performing her duties as labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring him to perform only administrative post requiring her to perform only administrative duties. While interpreting Section 2(S) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh V/s Municipal Council, Sanaur AlR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:-1430 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] "The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms and 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 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 plain 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 causal employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.” 8. Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time or part time or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in employee plain language of Section 2(S) from which it can be infer that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed 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. In view of the ratio of law enunciated in the above ruling, in my considered opinion, the claimant herein admittedly falls within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(S) of the Act. 9. Workman has claimed that at the time of her removal, she was getting Rs.3900/- per month and she had worked 240 days prior to her termination. Workman in her cross examination has admitted that bank did not pay monthly salary instead payment was made on the basis of the working days. Workman has also placed on record vouchers for the period during which the applicant served with the bank, however, these vouchers were not get exhibited, but these vouchers has been relied upon by the workman, which shows that she was paid on the basis of the working days for the services rendered by her. However, she had completed 240 days prior to her termination as per own admission of Mr. Mohit Dalak, MW1. From the cross examination of Mr. Mohit Dalak, MW1, it emerges that workman had worked continuously from 05.10.2014 to 14.11.2017. This witness had also admitted that no compensation and notice was given to the workman. He has also stated that in place of Maya Devi, Mr. Manoj Kumar was engaged through contractor. Thus it is clear that there was violation of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act. 10. Admittedly, the respondent is an industry and there was non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman has already been able to prove that she worked continuously for a period of 240 days prior to her termination of her services by respondent on 16.11.2017. It is proved as per statement of Mr. Mohit Dalak, MW1. It is added here that the applicant worked as sweeper w.e.f. 05.10.2014 till 16.11.2017 intermittently. Admittedly, in this case, applicant was not paid retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the ID Act and in place of her, Mr. Manoj Kumar was engaged in place of applicant as sweeper. Thus, there was violation of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act. 11. Admittedly, there is violation of Section 25-F of the Act and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.Vs Man Singh, 2012(1) SCT 641, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement has to be given as a matter of right. Reliance can also be placed upon Jasbir Singh Vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009(3) SCT 790, under which it has been held that in the legal position and the Court had recent past, there had been a shift in consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may she wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation, even though termination of an employee was in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement was held to be the prudent relief to meet the ends of justice. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as District Development Officer & Anr. V/s Satish Kantilal Amrelia, Civil Appeal Nos. 19857-19858 of 2017; decided on 28 November , 2017 has held as follow: "that the reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious, It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstatement such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose". In view of above discussed above workman entitled for compensation as she was working on temporary basis intermittently. 12. Learned counsel for the workman has also argued that for rendering one year service workman should be granted Rs.1 lac per year and since the workman has worked for about 3 years and therefore compensation of Rs. 3 lac be awarded to the workman in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts. To support this view, ld. counsel for applicant relied upon the judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed in Civil Appeal[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1431 No. 10957 of 2013 titled as B.S.N.L. Versus Bhurumal. However, the case law cited by the ld. counsel for appellant is not applicable as the workman in said case was lineman and has claimed that he has worked for 15 years of service, but was able to prove service of 3 years, and therefore was gratned Rs.3 Lakh as compensation keeping in view that he was rendering technical service of lineman. However, in the present case, the workman was working intermittently as sweeper and her duties does not include any technicality. 13. It is added here that in the present case workman has intermittently worked for about 3 years as sweeper as is itself stated by the respondent and keeping in view the above discussed circumstances and case law titled as Hemant Babruvahan Parchake versus Social Welfare Officer, Somalwar Bhavan, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur and others 201 (4) AIR BomR 781, wherein for 18 months, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was granted as compensation, workman is granted Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 14. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication. KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 560.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मसे स च सन जसक्योठरटी सर्वसच िे सव,े परमार नगर न.ं3, पर् ;े मिाप्रबिं क, भारत सर्ं ार जनगम जलजमटेड डीटीओ कंपाउंड, िीपीओ के पास, अिमिनगर; उप जडवीिन इंिीजनयर,भारत सर्ं ार जनगम जलजमटेड, कोपरगावं , अिमिनगर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सोनवर् े राििे वसतं , कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िचष्ट श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिनगर, पर्ं ाट(सिं भ च सख्ं या Reference (IDA) No. 27/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000832019)को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-77- vkbZ vkj (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award Reference (IDA) No. 27/2019 (CNR No. MHLC160000832019) of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Sun Security Services Survey, Parmar Nagar No.3, Pune ; The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound, Near GPO, Ahmednagar; Sub. Divl. Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Kopargaon , Ahmednagar, and Shri Sonawane Rajesh Vasant, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. L-42025-07-2025-77- IR(DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR (Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar) Reference (IDA) No. 27/2019 (CNR No. MHLC160000832019) 1. M/s. Sun Security Services, Survey No. 67, 1st floor, Parmar Nagar No.3, Pune 411013.1432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound Near GPO, Ahmednagar 414002 3. Sub. Divl. Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Kopargaon Dist.: Ahmednagar 414002 ... First Party Vs. Sonawane Rajesh Vasant C/o.: Datta Mandir Road, Gandhinagar, Po.: Kopargaon, Tal.: Kopargaon Ahmednagar 414002. … Second Party AWARD ( Date: 19-07-2022) 1. This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide referral order dated 7-3-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Rajesh Vasant Sonawane was dismissed from services. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ? 2. After receipt of said reference this court issued notice to second party Rajesh Vasant Sonawane. However, notice was returned back with remark (deceased). Thereafter no any legal heir or Advocate came forward and filed any Statement of Claim before Court. Therefore, this court could not reached to conclusion or record any finding on both issues regarding fairness proceedings and issue of reinstatement alongwith consequential benefits. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order- AWARD 1. The reference is answered in the negative and disposed off for want of claim. 2. Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action. SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer, Ahmednagar Date : 19.07.2022 नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 561.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार प्रबिं क, मसे स चपजे स्ट्टका लबे र सर्वसच िे प्राइवटे जलजमटेड, अभ्यि य िाउससगं सोसाइटी, वानवाड़ी, पर् ;े मिाप्रबिं क, भारत सर्ं ार जनगम जलजमटेड डीटीओ कंपाउंड, िीपीओ के पास, अिमिनगर; उप जडवीिन इंिीजनयर,भारत सर्ं ार जनगम जलजमटेड, कोपरगावं , अिमिनगर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री कर्डचल े सतं ोर् रामिास, कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िचष्ट श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिनगर, पर्ं ाट(सिं भ च सख्ं या (Reference(IDA)No.63/2018 (CNR No. MHLC160004642018)को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ैिो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-78- vkbZ vkj (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1433 New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA)No.63/2018 (CNR No. MHLC160004642018) of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Manager, M/s. Pestika Labour Services Pvt. Ltd., Abhudaya Hsg. Society, Wanwadi, Pune; The General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound, Near GPO, Ahmednagar; Sub.Divl. Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Kopargaon , Ahmednagar, and Shri Kardile Santosh Ramdas, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. L-42025-07-2025-78- IR(DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR (Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar) Reference (IDA) No. 63/2018 (CNR No. MHLC160004642018) 1. The Manager, M/s. Pestika Labour Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.11, Survey No.52/2, Abhudaya Hsg. Society, Wanwadi, Pune 411040. 2. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., D.T.O. Compound, Near G.P.O. Ahmednagar 414001. 3. Sub Divl Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Tal.: Pathardi, Ahmednagar ... First Party Vs. Kardile Santosh Ramdas Rajuri Kolyachi, Tal.: Jamkhed, Ahmednagar 414001. … Second Party :AWARD: ( Date: 5-11-2022) 1. This reference is referred by the Deputy Director, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide referral order dated 25-10-2018 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Santosh Ramdas Kardile was dismissed from services. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ? 2. After receipt of this reference Court has issued notice through registered post A.D. to Second party Santosh Ramdas Kardile which was duly served at Exh. O-6. However, Second Party did not appear or file any statement of claim on record. As there is no any evidence given by the second party this court unable to reach any finding. Therefore, both the issues No.1& 2 fairness of action taken by first party and issue of reinstatement alongwith back wages and other consequential benefits does not survive. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order- AWARD 1. The reference is answered in the negative and disposed off for want of claim. 2. Four Copies of this award be sent to the Deputy Director, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action. SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer Ahmednagar Date :05.11.20221434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 562.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ें केन्रीय सरकार मिाप्रबिं क, भारत सर्ं ार जनगम जलजमटेड डीटीओ कंपाउंड, िीपीओ के पास, अिमिनगर; उप जडवीिन इंिीजनयर,भारत सर्ं ार जनगम जलजमटेड, कोपरगावं , अिमिनगर; प्रबिं क, मसै स.च सिकाय च स्ट्वय ं रोिगार सस्ट्ं था मयादच ित, केडगावं , अिमिनगर,के प्रबंितत्रं के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िखे ठरयाि मन्न,ू कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िष्टच श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिनगर, पर्ं ाट(सिं भ च सख्ं या (Reference(IDA)No.31/2019 (CNR No.MHLC16000902019) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-79-आईआर (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA) No. 31/2019 (CNR No. MHLC160000902019)of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound, Near GPO, Ahmednagar; Sub. Divl. Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Kopargaon, Ahmednagar ; The Manager, M/s. Sahakarya Swyam Rojgar Sanshta Maryadit, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar, and Shri Shaikh Riyaj Mannu,, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025. [No. L-42025-07-2025-79-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR (Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar) Reference (IDA) No. 31/2019 (CNR No. MHLC160000902019) 1. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound Near GPO, Ahmednagar 414002 2. Sub. Divl. Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Kopargaon Dist.: Ahmednagar 414002 3. The Manager, M/s. Sahakarya Swyam Rojgar Sanshta Maryadit, Kedgaon, Tal.: Nagar, Dist.: Ahmednagar Ahmednagar 414002. ... First Party Vs. Shaikh Riyaj Mannu, Gajanan Nagar,Wadali Road,Srigonda, Tal.: Srigonda, Ahmednagar 414002. … Second Party[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1435 AWARD ( Date: 28-09-2022) 1. This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide referral order dated 8-3-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Shaikh Riyaj Mannu was dismissed from services. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ? 2. After receipt of this reference Court has issued notice through registered post A.D. to Second party Shaikh Riyaj Mannu which was duly served on . However, Second Party did not appear or file any statement of claim on record. As there is no any evidence given by the second party this court unable to reach any finding. Therefore, both the issues No.1& 2 fairness of action taken by first party and issue of reinstatement alongwith back wages and other consequential benefits does not survive. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order- AWARD 1. The reference is answered in the negative and disposed off for want of claim. 2. Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action. SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer Ahmednagar Date :28.09.2022 नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 563.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ेंकेन्रीय सरकार मसे स च -वले िी िोसाभाई एंड ससं प्राइवटे जलजमटेड जलजमटेड, गोिरेि कोजलज़ीयम, एवरडच नगर के पीछे, सायन (पवू )च , मब ं ई, के प्रबंितंत्र के सबं द्ध जनयोिकों और कायकच ारी अध्यक्ष, पठरविन एव ं डॉक वकचस च यजू नयन, मब ं ई, के बीर् अन बंि म ें जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-2,म ंबई,पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या Ref.no.CGIT- 2/19 of 2019) को िैसा दक अनल ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल - 42011/4/2019-आईआर (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. no. CGIT-2/19 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/S. VELJI DOSABHAI & SONS PVT. LTD., Godrej Coliseum, Behind Evarard Nagar, Sion (East),Mumbai , and The Working President, Transport & Dock Workers Union, Mumbai,, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central [No. L-42011/4/2019-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI PRESENT SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/19 of 2019 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. VELJI DOSABHAI & SONS PVT. LTD.1436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Godrej Coliseum, 5the Floor, Off, Eastern Express Highway, Behind Evarard Nagar, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022. AND THEIR WORKMEN. (TRANSPORT & DOCK WORKERS UNION) The Working President, Transport & Dock Workers Union, P.D. Mello Bhavan, P.D. Mello Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai 400 038. APPEARANCES: Party No. 1 : Mr. T. Vijay Kumar Advocate. Party No. 2 : No appearance. AWARD (Delivered on 28-02-2025) 1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-42011/4/2019-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2019. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows: `Whether the demand of Transport & Dock Workers Union for payment of annual service increment to the employees of M/s. Velji Dosabhai & Sons Pvt. Ltd. as per the provisions of MOS dated 29.04.2008 signed between Bombay Custom House Agents` Association and Transport & Dock Workers Union, is fair, legal & justified? If so, what relief the employees of M/s. Velji Dosabhai & Sons Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to?` 2. None present for Second Party Union since long even though served by RPAD notice R/O 26.09.2024. The First Party present by Mr. T. Vijay Kumar Advocate. Read application filed on behalf of the First Party. Perused the order sheets. It appears that, the present Reference is of 2019, however the Second Party Union remained absent and not even filed statement of claim and in absence of pleading, the Reference cannot be proceeded. It seems that, the Second Party Union is not interested to prosecute the Reference further. In view of this, the Reference is disposed off for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. The proceeding is closed. Hence, I pass the following Order- ORDER i. The Reference is answered in the negative. ii. The Second Party is not entitled for relief as prayed. iii. No order as to costs. iv. The copy of Award be sent to the Government. Date: 28-02-2025 SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1437 नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 564.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् म,ेंकेन्रीय सरकार मिाप्रबिं क, भारत सर्ं ार जनगम जलजमटेड, िरू सर्ं ार जिला, सक्े टर-8, करनाल, िठरयार्ा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री राम रतन, कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय-1, र्ंडीगढ़, पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या 48/2012)को िैसा दक अन लग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ि,ैप्रकाजित करती ि ै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [सं. एल – 40012/57/2012-आईआर (डीय)ू ] दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, as The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom District, Sector- 8, Karnal, Haryana, and Shri Ram Rattan, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.04.2025. [No. L-40012/57/2012-IR(DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam. ID No.48/2012 Registered On: 15.01.2013 Ram Rattan S/o Sh. Surat Singh R/o Village Bhaiswal, Tehsil & District-Panipat, Haryana. ...........Workman Versus The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom District, Sector-8, Karnal, Haryana. ........Management AWARD Passed On: 27.01.2025 Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/57/2012-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2013, 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), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:- “Whether the actin of the management of General Manager, BSNL, Karnal in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Rattan S/o Sh. Surat Singh, Cable Jointer w.e.f. 20.03.2011 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for cross examination of Workman but none is responding on behalf of workman and the workman himself is not appearing before the Court for his cross examination. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the management that workman is not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition. 2. Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for Cross-examination but of no use. Which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with1438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 3. 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 नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025 का.आ. 565.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj केन्रीय लोक जनमार्च जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; u a 1 fnYyh ds iapkV (a298/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-46] सलोनी , उप गनदेशक New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025 S.O. 565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.298/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No -I Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD and their workmen. [No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-I)-46] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI ID No. 298/2023 Sh. Santosh Kumar & Sh. Samshad through President, All India CPWD Karmchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex, Shop No. 4, Opp. Bust Stand, Gurugram. …Applicant/Claimant Versus 1. The Director General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Executive Engineer, CPWD, Electrical Division-81, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi-110003. 3. M/s R.K. Siddhu, 102-B, South Ex-Tower, Masjid Moth, South Extension-2 New Delhi. …Managements/respondents Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: None for the claimant. For Management/ Respondent: None for the management.[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947 1439 AWARD 1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter no. ND-25/I- 76/2023-IR dated 01.12.2023 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under: “Whether the demand of contract workmen Sh. Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Rajinder Prasad, AC Operator and Shri Samshad S/o MD Jamil, Electrician through All India CPWD Karamchari Union, for regularization of their services in the establishment of CPWD is legal and/or justified? And if so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” 2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government directed the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant/ union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal. 3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favor of the fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf on all four dates of hearing. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits. In light of the fact that the claimant has not been appearing to pursue his claim, his claim has resulted in No Dispute Award. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room. Dated 12.02.2025 ATUL KUMAR GARG, 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.

Continue your research

Related Documents from This Gazette may contains Multiple Ministry / Organization