This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

236रजिस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 सी.जी.-डी.एxलx.x-GसIDा.H-0x7xx0 92024-256971 CG-DLxx-WxG-I0D7E0x9xx2 024-256971 प्राजिकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्त ाजिक WEEKLY स.ं 34] नई दिल्ल ी, अगस्ट्त 25—अगस्ट्त 31, 2024, िजनवार/ भाद्र 3—भाद्र 9, 1946 No. 34] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 25—AUGUST 31, 2024, SATURDAY/BHADRA 3–BHADRA 9, 1946 इस भाग म ेंजभन्न ृ्‍ष स्‍ं ा िी िाती ि जजिसस ेदक ि ृ ष क संकलन के प ृ म ेंर ा िा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation भाग II— ण्ड 3—उृ- ण्ड (ii) PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii) भारत सरकार के मत्रं ाल ों (रक्षा मत्रं ाल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए साजं वजिक आििे और अजिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence) जवििे मन्त्राल (सीृीवी प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1641.— रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एव ं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि । एति ्द्वारा,सरकार भारत के ितू ावास, ााँगो म ेाँ श्री िमे ािीत ृा क, सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी,को अगस्ट्त 22, 2024 से सिा क कांसुलर अजिकारी के प ृ म ेंकांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करन े के जलए अजिकषत करती ि।ज [फा. स.ं टी. 4330/01/2024(29)] एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीृीवी-l) 5256 GI/2024 (3691)3692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (CPV Division) New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2024 S.O. 1641.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Hemajit Pathak, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Yangon, to perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from August 22, 2024. [F. No.T- 4330/01/2024(29)] S.R.H. FAHMI, Director (CPV-I) मत्सस्ट् ृालन, ृिुृालन और ड े री मंत्राल (मत्सस्ट् ृालन जवभाग) (रािभाषा अनभु ाग) नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1642.—केंद्री सरकार, रािभाषा( संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976( ा संिोजित 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण म,ें मत्सस्ट् ृालन जवभाग, मत्सस्ट् ृालन, ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ावल ों म ें जिन्िी का का वसािक ज्ञान र न े वाले कमवचारर ों की सं्‍ ा 80% स े अजिक िो िान े के फलस्ट्वप ृ इन का ावल ों को एतद्वारा भारत के रािृत्र म ें अजिसूजचत करती ि।ज 1. राष्ट्री माजत्सस्ट् की जवकास बोडव मत्सस्ट् ृालन जवभाग मत्सस्ट् ृालन, ृिुृालन और डे री मंत्राल , भारत सरकार जृल्लर नंबर 235, ृीवीएनआर एक्सप्रेसवे, एसवीृी एनृीए ृोस्ट्ट ििज राबाि- 500 052 (तले ंगाना) 2. राष्ट्री माजत्सस्ट् की जवकास बोडव ृूवी क्षेत्री केंद्र (ईआरसी) राष्ट्री मी ािल मत्सस्ट् ब्रडू बैंक (एनएफएफबीबी) कौिल् ागगं ा, भुवनेश्वर (ओजडिा)- 751 002 [फा. सं. ई-11016/1/2023-डीओएफ (कंप् ूटर नं.: 23162)] सागर मेिरा, सं ुक्त सजचव (प्रिा.) New Delhi, the 16th August, 2024 S.O. 1642.—The Central Government, in pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011), the following offices under the administrative control of the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying wherein more than 80% of their employees having working knowledge of Hindi, are hereby notified in the Gazette of India. 1. National Fisheries Development Board Fisheries Department Fisheries , Animal Husbandry and Dairying , Government of India Pillar No.235 , PVNR Expressway , SVP NPA Post Hyderabad - 500 052 (Telangana)[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3693 2. National Fisheries Development Board Eastern Regional Centre(ERC) National Freshwater Fish Brood Bank (NFFBB) Kaushalya Ganga, Bhubaneswar (Odisha) - 751 002 [F. No. E-11016/1/2023-DOF (Computer No.: 23162] SAGAR MEHRA, Jt. Secy. (Admn.) श्रम और रोिगार मत्रं ाल नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1643.—vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es]a dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a – सि – ] ििज राबाि ds ipa kV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/132/2018- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक MINISTRY OF LABOUR& EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1643.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 111/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/132/2018 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 111/2018 Between: Sri Bandari Satyanarayana, State General Secretary, SCLU (TNTUC), Gandhinagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District -505209. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Adilabad-504303. … Respondents Appearances:3694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/132/2018 (IR(CM-II)) Dated 22/11/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Sreerampur area, Sreerampur-504303 Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Medi Muthayalu, Ex-Coal Filler, E.C.No.2830540, SCCL, Chennur-I & 1A Incline, of Srirampur Division with effect from 30-07-1998 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 111/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘No Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1644.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es]a dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas – सि – ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं ,y--22012/128/2018-vkbZ-vkj-(सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1644.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 110/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/128/2018 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3695 ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 110/2018 Between: Sri Bandari Satyanarayana, State General Secretary, SCLU (TNTUC), Gandhinagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District -505209. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Adilabad-504303. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/128/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated 22/11/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Sreerampur area, Sreerampur-504303 Mancherial District in terminating the services of Sri Dooda Shankar, Ex-Badli Filler, E.C.No.2901799, SCCL, Srirampur Division with effect from 08-12-99 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 110/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘No Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 2024. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL3696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1645.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dks vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/140/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1645.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 85/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/140/2017 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 85/2018 Between: The Vice President, (Sri Bandari Lingaiah), Singareni Collieries Employees Union (CITU), Q.No. 39-T, SMG X Road, Bellampalli-504251. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3697 A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/140/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated 01/05/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the alleged demand dated 21.07.2015 of Singareni Collieries Employees Union to correct fixation of pay, increment, payment of arrears and regularization of the services of Smt. Masthan Bee working as Badli worker under M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd, Mandamarri Area is legal, fair and justified? If yes, what relief the disputant are entitled to and from which date?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 85/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, Hence, a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1646.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/72/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1646.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 84/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/72/2017 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director3698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 84/2018 Between: Sri Somaram Thirupathi Branch Secretary, Singareni collieries Workers Union (AITUC), Bellampalli Branch, K.L. Mahendra Branch, Goleti Adilabad-504292 ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Townshio Adilabad-504292. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/72/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated 08/05/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Adilabad Dist.(TS) in awarding punishment of lowering to the previous posts of security guards to Sri A. Sadaiah w.e.f 16.05.2016, Sri Mende Thirupathi 24.8.2016 and Sri J. Mallesham w.e.f. 1.3.2016 is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled to and from which date?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 84/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘No Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 2024. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3699 Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1647.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn esa –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/127/2018- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 113/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/127/2018–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 113/2018 Between: Sri Bandari Satyanarayana, State General Secretary, SCLU (TNTUC), Gandhinagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District -505209. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Adilabad-504303. Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate3700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/127/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated 26/11/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Sreerampur area, Sreerampur-504303 Adilabad District in terminating the services of Sri Kalaveni Srinivas, Ex-Badli Filler,Ex-BF E.C.No.2915984,IK-1A Inc., SCCL., Sreerampur Area with effect from 01-02-2009 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 113/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner did not file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1648.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a –सि– ] िजिराबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान 89/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/88/2015- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 89/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/88/2015 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3701 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 89/2018 Between: The President (Bandari Satyanarayana), Telangana Trade Union Council, Raj Kumar Complex, Saibaba temple road, Jaffar Nagar, Mancherial-504208. .. Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/88/2015 (IR(CM-II)) dated 26/06/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the demand raised by President, Telangana Trade Union Council, Mancherial, Adilabad distt for dependent employment to Smt. Boda Rukma wife of Sri Boda Chandu, Ex-CF, SMG-3 Inc. SCCL, Mandamarri Area Adilabad Distt, in spite of Memorandum of Settlement dated 29-10-2011 is justified and legal. If yes to what relief Smt. Boda Rukma, applicant is entitled from the management of the M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,, Mandamarri Area and from which date?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 89/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the dated fixed for file claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. Record reveals that 1st notice dated 15.5.2019 on petitioner was served but no claim statement filed. 2nd notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Hence, ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1649.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V3702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vkS|kfsxd fookn esa –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/107/2018- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 46/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/107/2018–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 46/2018 Between: Sri Madam Iylaiah, H.No. 9-4-92, Vittal Nagar 5 Inc., Ramagundam (M) Peddapalli Dist. (TS) ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani-505209. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/107/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 29/01/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli Dist. (TS) in terminating the services of Sri Madam Iylaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, GDK-2 INC,. Ramagundam-I area with effect from 22.9.2010 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for. The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 46/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3703 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case a ‘No Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1650.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/31/2022- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 48/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/31/2022 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of July, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 48/2022 Between: The Singareni Miners and Engineering Workers Union(HMS) C-34, Sector-1, Godavarikhani, Peddapally-577101. ..….Petitioner3704 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Mancherial-505215. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri K Vashudev Reddy, advocate For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/31/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 11/04/2022 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the demand raised by The Singareni Miners & Engineering Workers Union, Telengana against the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area in terminating the services of Shri Boora Laxminarayana, Ex-Badili Filler Sreerampur Area w.e.f. 30-11-2002 vide letter No. SRP/PER/35A/02/5463 dated 30-11-2002 is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the applicant Shri Boora Laxminarayana is entitled and what direction are necessary in this regards?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 48/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of July, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1651.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds dedZ kjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/126/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3705 New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 49/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/126/2017–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of July, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2022 Between: The Singareni Miners And Engineering Workers Union (HMS)C-34, Sector-I, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli-507101. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Mancherial-505215. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri Vasudeva Reddy, advocate For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/32/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 11/04/2022 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli, in spite of to conduct interview of Sri Ahmed Jani in the year 1996 and sent to Area Hospital, Bellampalli for Medical fintness and declared fit by the medical authorities, in non-providing dependent employment to Sri Ahmed Jani, Son-in-Law of late Sd Ismail, Ex-Cook, who had opted for voluntary retirement scheme on health grounds in favour of employment to his son-in-law Sri S Ahmed Jani, later on died on 10.02.1998 due to illness, is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant Sri S Ahmed jani is entitled to and what direction are necessary in this regard?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 49/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.3706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of July, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1652.—vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं 22012/109/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 57/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/109/2017 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 57/2018 Between: The General Secretary, (Sri Riaz Ahmed), Singareni Mines & Engg. Workers Union (HMS) H.No. C-34, Sector-I,[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3707 Godavarikhani-505209. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani-505209. …… Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/109/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 15/12/2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Dist, in fixing the basic pay @ Rs. 11,093-38 ps instead of @ Rs. 11959.48 ps in respect of S/Sri E. Rajeshwar Rao, Kudikala Satheesh, and N. Srinivas, Security, Guards GR-Government, S& PC, SCCl, Ramagundam-I area is justified or not? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 57/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘No Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1653.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/104/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक3708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 61/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/104/2017–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 61/2018 Between: Bandari Satyanarayana, President, Telangana Trade Union Congress, Hamaliwada, near Ashok Talkies, Shivaji Band Street, Mancherial-504208 ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231. ..…Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/104/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated 26/12/2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mancherial Dist. (TS). In terminating the services of Sri Seggam Bhoomaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, RK-1A, Mandamarri Area with effect from 9.6.2004 in justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 61/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3709 Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1654.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds icz a/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/6/2018- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 63/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/6/2018–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 63/2018 Between: The President (Bandari Satyanarayana), Telangana Trade Union Congress, Hamaliwada, near Ashok Talkies, Shivaji Band Street, Mancherial-504208 ..….Petitioner AND3710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township (PO)-504292. …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/6/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated 02/04/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli area, Goleti Township (PO), Adilabad Dist., in terminating the services of Sri Sothuku Mondi, Ex-CF, Goleti-I INC., Bellampalli area Bellampalli area with effect from 15.11.2007 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for.” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 63/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1655.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es]a dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [ स.ं -22012/7/2018- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 20/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3711 Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/7/2018–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 20/2019 Between: Sri Bandari Satyanarayana, Sr. Vice President, RCMS Central Committee & SRP Divn., President, Mancherial, Hamaliwada, Near Ashok Talkies, Shivaji Band Street, Mancherial-504208. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur Area, Mancherial-504303. ..…Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/7/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dated 02/01/2019 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Sreerampur area, Sreerampur, Mancherial Dist. (TS), in terminating the services of Sri Morla Mallesh, Ex-General Mazdoor, RKNT, SCCL, Sreerampur area with effect from 18.11.2003 and not reinstating him after interview held on 14.4.2012 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 20/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a no-claim award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 2024. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent3712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1656.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es]a dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/141/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 5/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/141/2017–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 5/2019 Between: Sri Janagam Mallesh, S/o Narsaiah, H.No. 3-5-56/1, Sundilla (V), Kamanpur (M) Peddapalli Dist. (TS) ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I Area, Godavarikhani-505209 Peddapalli Dist. (TS) … Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3713 A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/141/2017-IR(CM-II) dated 22/03/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the general manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-I area, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli Dist.(TS) in terminating the services of Sri Janagam Mallesh, Ex-Coal filler GDK-2A INC, Ramagundam-I area with effect from 23.1.2014 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 5/2019 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is a ‘No Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1657.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds icz a/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn esa –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/105/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 60/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/105/2017–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director3714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2018 Between: Bandari Satyanarayana, President, Telangana Trade Union Congress, Hamaliwada, near Ashok Talkies, Shivaji Band Street, Mancherial-504208 ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231. .. …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/105/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated 21/12/2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mancharial dist. (TS), in terminating the services of Sri Sange Rajesham, Ex-CF, SMG-1 INC., Mandamarri Area with effect from 11.1.2000 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 60/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed. Hence, a ‘no-claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 2024. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent NIL NIL[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3715 Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1658.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es]a dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds icz a/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dk s vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/30/2016- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 40/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13/08/2024 [No. L-22012/30/2016–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD resent: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of May, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 40/2016 Between: Sri Gadde Narsaiah S/o Posham, H.No. 16-1-82/21, Ballempalli No. 2 Incline Basti Asafabad Tq., Adilabad Distt., Telangana ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township-504292 Adilabad Distt., Telengana … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Y Ranjeeth Reddy, Adv. For the Respondent: Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, Advocate3716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/30/2016 (IR(CM-II) dated 08/07/2016 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township, Adilabad Distt in terminating the services of Sri Gadde Narsaiah, Ex-Coal Filler, Goleti No. 1 Incline, SCCL, Bellampalli Area with effect from 15.07.2004 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 40/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. None present for both sides. Notice sent on petitioner returned unserved with endorsement as ‘addresse expired, hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no LR petition filed by any legal heir of petitioner. It seems that LRs do not want to pursue the case. Hence, case is dismissed for default. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of may , 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1659.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kts dks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22013/01/2024- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 72/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3717 ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 12th day of July, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 72/2021 Between: The General Secretary, Singareni Miners & Engineering Workers Union (HMS) Q.No. C-34, Sector-1, Godavarikhani-505209. ..….Petitioner AND 1. The Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Red Hills, P.O. Box No.18, Khairathabad, Hyderabad 2. The Agen, K-P, U.G. INC, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Manuguru, Khammam District, Telengana 3. The Chief General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Manuguru, Khammam District Telengana State. 4. The Director (P,A&W), M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Kothagudem, Khammam District-507101. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Shri K. Vasudeva Reddy, advocate For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.1/12/2021-B1 dated 15/09/2021 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. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Manuguru Area in termination of Sri Gurrala Chandrasekhar, General Mazdoor from the services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 72/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed.3718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 12th day of July, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1660.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k es a fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/103/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 59/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024 [No. L-22012/103/2017–IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 59/2018 Between: Sri Bandari Satyanarayana, Sr. Vice President, RCMS Central Committee & SRP Divn., President, Mancherial, Hamaliwada, Near Ashok Talkies, Shivaji Band Street, Mancherial-504208. ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : अगस्ट्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3719 Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri-504231. …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/103/2017 (IR(CM-II)) dated 26/12/2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mancharial dist. (TS), in terminating the services of Sri Eppal Ramulu, Ex-CF, Shantikhani, Mandamarri Area with effect from 26.9.2007 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 59/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the dated fixed for file claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. Record reveals that 1st notice dated 21.10.2019 on petitioner was served but no claim statement filed. 2nd notice sent to petitioner returned un-served with endorsement as ‘addressee left’ hence returned to sender. Petitioner did not appear and not filed any claim statement. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Hence, ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of June, 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, 21 अगस्ट् त, 2024 का.आ. 1661.—vkS|kfsxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|kfsxd fookn es a –सि– ] ििज राबाि ds iapkV (ृिचान / ) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22013/01/2024- (सी.एम-II)] मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 69/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22013/01/2024 – IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director3720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 12th day of July, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 69/2021 Between: Sri S.Ravi Kumar, Ex-General Mazdoor, C/o Smt. A.Sarojana, flat no.G7 Rajeswari Gayathri Sadan, Kachiguda, Hyderabad ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-II Area, Peddapalli District. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Shri K. Vasudeva Reddy & B. Kiran Kumar, advocate For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.1/10/2021-B1 dated 02/09/2021 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. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Ramagundam-II Area in terminating the services of Sri S.Ravi kumar, Ex-General Mazdoor, Ramagundam-II Area with effect from 26.03.2007 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. 69/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 12th day of July, 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[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 31, 2024/भाद्र 9, 1946 3721 नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1662.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a –सह– ] हिै राबाि ds iapkV (पहचान / ) dk s izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dk s dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [स.ं -22012/126/2017- (सी.एम-II)] मणिकंिन एन, उप णनिेशक New Delhi, the 21st August, 2024 S.O. 1662—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 49/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/08/2024. [No. L-22012/126/2017– IR (CM-II)] MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of May, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2018 Between: The Vice President (Sri Bandari Lingaiah), Singareni Collieries Employees Union (CITU), Qtr. No. 39-T, SMG X Roads, Bellampalli-504251 ..….Petitioner AND The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Madamarri-505231. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Y Ranjeet Reddy, Advocate A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-22012/126/2017 (IR(CM-II)) Dated 29/01/2018 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,3722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] THE SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Mandamarri Area, Mandamarri, Mancherial Dist.(TS) in terminating the services of Sri Thangellapally Kanakalah, Geni., Mazdoor, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,, Kasipeta Mine., Mandamarri area with effect from 21.12.2014 is justified or not? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 49/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that 1st notice dated 19.3.2018 on petitioner was served but no claim statement filed. 2nd Notice sent to petitioner returned un- served with endorsement as addressee expired’, hence returned to sender. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunity no claim statement is filed since 2018. Hence, a ‘No-Claim’award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 28th day of May, 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, 22 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1663.—औद्योणगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj यूनियि बैंक ऑफ इंनिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V औद्योणगक fookn eas औद्योणगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; iVuk ds iapkV [17 (C) of 2021] izdkf”kr djrh gSA [स.ं ,y-39025/01/2024-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-36] सलोनी, उप णनिशे क New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2024 S.O. 1663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17 (C ) of 2021) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Patna as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management ofUnion Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B-II)-36] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE Before The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna. Reference Case No.:-17 (C) of 2021 Between the management of (1) the Managing Director &Chief Executive Officer, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai Samachar Marg 239, Back Way Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (2) the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Mohanpur, Samastipur-848101 and Their workman Sri Santosh Kumar Choudhary, S/ Shri Rameshwar Choudhary, Vill- Siswa Khurd, P.O & P.S- Daudpur, Dist- Saran, Bihar-841205.3723 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] For the management:- Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Ambanish Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the workman:- Sri B. Prasad, State Secretary, UCO Bank Employees Association. Present:- Manoj Shankar Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna. A W A R D Patna, dt- 19th July, 2024. By the adjudication order no.- 1/ID(12)/2021/Dy CLC-Pt dated- 20/25.10.2021 the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Office of the Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Maurya Lok Complex, A Block, 2nd Floor, Room No.-6,16,& 17, Patna-800001 has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) of Section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), the following dispute between (1) the Managing Director Chief Executive officer, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai Samachar Marg 239, Back Way Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (2) the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Mohanpur, Samastipur-848101 and Their workman Sri Santosh Kumar Choudhary, S/O Shri Rameshwar Choudhary, Vill- Siswa Khurd, P.O & P.S- Daudpur, Dist- Saran, Bihar-841205 for adjudication to this tribunal:- SCHEDULE “ Whether the action of the management of the then Andhra Bank (now called Union Bank of India ), Daudpur Branch, Bihar in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Choudhary, temporary Peon, .e.f. 01.02.2017, is just and proper? If not, to what relief (s) the workman concerned is entitled to?” 2. As per the statement of claim, the case of the applicant Sri Santosh Kumar Choudhary is that Andhra Bank ( now called Union Bank of India after merger), opened a branch at Daudpur Dist.- Saran in the year-2013. It is further asserted that Santosh Kumar Choudhary, workman was orally appointed as temporary peon in the said branch from 01.10.2014 against a permanent vacant post of a peon. The workman discharged all the duties of a peon from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 regularly. It is further asserted that the workman as assigned duties and ( i) opening and closing the bank gate,( ii) cleaning tables, chairs, counters, (iii) stitching of currency notes and vouchers, (iv) placing the register and book on the counters, (v) taking out cash box from the strong room placing the same at cash counter. Some times he did postal work of the bank. It is further asserted that the workman discharged his duties right from 8.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M as per the Branch Manager. It is further asserted that the workman was being paid wages on monthly basis that was initially Rs. 1800/- per month which was raised Rs. 4000/- P.M and lastly workman was getting Rs. 12000/- P.M. All the payment was made to the workman through debit vouchers and the amount was credited to his S.B. Account. It is further asserted that the workman was also maintaining attendance in the branch every day. But all of sudden he was stopped from working on 01.02.2017 by the bank officials without giving any notice or any retrenchment compensation so termination of the workman is covered u/s- 2 (oo) of the I.D.Act and the action of the management constitutes unfair labour practice as per Schedule-V read with Section 25(T) of the I.D.Act. It is further asserted that after termination workman approached several times before higher authorities of the management bank for his reinstatement and regularisation but his effort was failed then he raised his grievance before the conciliation officer but management side was not ready to settle the dispute, ultimately conciliation officer has sent the matter to the appropriate Govt. after failure of conciliation report. Ultimately this case was referred to this tribunal for adjudication. Thus the workman seeks following relief (s) ; (i) Reinstatement in the service of the bank as a temporary peon with back wages and other consequential benefits.; (ii) Regularisation of service as a peon; (iii) Payment of due wages, for the period of working; (iv) Payment of cost of Rs. 25000/- for contesting the dispute; (v) Any other relief (s) as a this tribunal deemed and proper; 3. On the other hand the management side filed written statement and stated therein the claim of the applicant / workman of this case is not maintainable either on the facts or in the eye of law and it is liable to be dismissed. It is further asserted that the applicant presented distorted and incorrect version of the facts and he attempted to mislead to this tribunal by disclosing exaggerated duties. It is further asserted that the dispute raised by the applicant / workman can’t be termed as Industrial Dispute within the I.D. Act because the applicant is not a workman at any point of time in the said bank hence there is no question of wrongful termination. It is further asserted that there is no relationship of the employer and employee because there was no contract of service between the applicant and the bank. The applicant was never appointed by the bank through sponsored of the employment exchange or through any3724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] recruitment process demanded by the Govt. It is further asserted that his name was never appeared on the muster roll of the bank and he was never paid salary. It is further asserted that there is no provision or rules regarding to oral appointment in public sector bank. It is further asserted that the applicant has not come up with clean hand before this tribunal and he has conceded relevant facts. The fact is, the applicant was engaged occasionally as casual labourer for the period and he was paid accordingly. It is further asserted that various allegations, submissions, contentions and averments made in the application are denied in toto. It is the duty of the applicant to put with strict proof. It is further asserted that if any appointment is made in violation of the recruitment norms, the appointment becomes void abinitio and it does not confer any right on the person, was appointed. It is further asserted that raising this dispute by the applicant is indirectly trying to enter in the service of the bank through back door however, it is clearly held by Hon’ble Court in Uma Devis case back door entries is bad in law. It is further asserted that the applicant has never worked regularly as daily wager rather as per requirement of the work he was called for which he was duly paid. It is further asserted that since the applicant s never appointed in the service of bank, so there is no question of any termination order for complying with the provision of the I.D. Act. It is further asserted that all the allegations as raised against the bank is totally denied and his claim is fit to be dismissed. 4. Having gone through the rival contentions both the sides, the following issues are recasted for adjudication:- (i) “Whether the applicant Santosh Kumar Choudhary is regrarded as workman under the provision of 2 (S) of the I.D. Act?” (ii) “Whether the Santosh Kumar Choudhary worked regularly from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 discharging duties as a temporary peon mentioned in statement of claim.” (iii) “ Whether the action of the management of the then Andhra Bank (now called Union Bank of India ), Daudpur Branch, Bihar in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar Choudhary, temporary Peon, w.e.f. 01.02.2017, is just and proper? If not, to what relief (s) the workman concerned is entitled to?” (iv) “Whether the applicant is entitled for any relief?” 5. In order to establish his claim, the workman sides examined one witness namely Santosh Kumar Choudhary (W.W-1) the applicant. Besides oral evidence workman side files some documents and got its marked Exts. as:- (i) Ext.-W- Payment voucher of dt- 01.10.2014. (ii) Ext.-W/1- Deputation of Santosh Kumar to bring P.C set from Andhra Bank, Gopalganj dt-24.03.2015. (iii) Ext.-W/2- Zerox copy of attendance register for the period of 12.12..2014 to 31.01.2017 ( Page-03 to 15 ). (iv) Ext.-W/3- Zerox copy of attendance sheet for the months of January-2017 bearing signature of initial of Branch Manager Sri Prakash Deepak. 6. On the other hand management side examined one witness namely Prakash Deepak (M.W-1). Management side not produced any documents. 7. First of all this tribunal securitizes the evidence of Santosh Kumar Choudhary of W.W-1. Who stated before this tribunal who was doing duty at Daudpur Branch of Andhara Bank now called Union Bank of India after merger. He further stated that he used to come to the branch at 9.00 A.M to open the gate of the bank thereafter, he used to discharge the duties of cleaning work and also did the duties of hospitality. He further stated that he often brought the cash from the strong room and for the cash counter. He also did the duty of vouchers binding. This witness further stated that initially he was getting Rs. 1800/- per month. Payment and after one year it was enhanced to Rs. 4000/- per month and after six month he started getting Rs. 12,000/- per month and this witness also stated that he was getting cash payment through vouchers issued in his name. This witness further proved the payment voucher of dt- 01.10.2014 marked as Ext.-W and he also proved the deputation letter of dt- 24.03.2015 given by Manager Daudpur Branch to bring PC from Branch Manger, Gopalganj as Ext.-W/1. This witness further stated that he worked Daudpur Branch from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 and he filed the zerox copy of attendance register for the period from 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 over which he put his signature / initial i.e from the page 03 to 25 marked as Ext.-W/2 and this witness further proved the 19 page of attendance register of the month January-2017 as Ext.-W/3 on which the then Manager Prakash Deepak put his initial. This witness further stated that during his tenure at Daudpur Branch there was no peon posted there. This witness further stated that he has given a written petition to the bank but he has not kept any copy of his petition. This witness further stated that bank neither sent any notice nor any retrenchment compensation before terminating him so his claim of reinstatement permanent peon his right. In cross-examination this witness categorically admitted that in para-13 of the cross-examination he has received just one vouchers from bank manager Manish Jaiswal of the year 2014 that he placed before this tribunal. In para-14 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he has bank account but he received his3725 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] payment once in bank account in the year 2014 and thereafter he received payment through vouchers. This witness further stated that on Ext.-w/1 Manager did not give any designation after his name in the letter. In para-15 of the cross-examination this witness categorically admits that he was making initial in English on the attendance register later on, on the instruction of manager he put the signature in Hindi. In para-16 this witness admits that on page-18 of attendance register there was signature of one Sanjay and his initial was in English and on page-20 of Ext.-W/2 his signature was in Hindi not in English. In para-18 of the cross-examination this witness admits that there is his signature on page-25 of (Ext.-W/2). In para-19 of the cross-examination this witness stated that he was called from the bank in Jan. 2018 and he discharged duty voluntarily there but this fact is not inserted in his statement of claim. In para-20 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he has taken the photo of attendance register through his Mobile and got it printed. In para-22 of the cross-examination this witness categorically stated that he used to keep the keys of bank main gate and on receiving the key of chest he used to open the Chest. This witness stated in para-25 he has no written proof of his joining. 8. On the other hand management examined Prakash Deepak, Assistant Manager of Union Bank of India, Mohania Branch as M.W-1 who stated before this tribunal he was Manager of Daudpur Branch from 21.11.2016 to 03.06.2018 earlier it was Andhra Bank now Union Bank of India after merger. This witness further stated that during his tenure he never put any notice for the recruitment of any peon. This witness further stated that when Santosh Kumar gave his service to the bank one Sanjay Kumar was PTS in the branch he was employee of the bank.This witness stated on query of this tribunal when ever Sanjay Kumar PTS was on leave than Santosh Kumar was called and bank took his service for one to two hours. This witness further stated that he was not posted in the said branch in the year 2014-15 so he can’t say Sanjay Kumar and Santosh Kumar PTS was maintaining his attendance on the same attendance register and this further stated that the attendance sheet produced by Santosh his forged and there is only one signature showing Santosh on the attendance sheet of during his tenure. This witness further stated that, on query by this tribunal, there was separate attendance register for PTS Sanjay in the bank. This witness further stated that he can’t say Ext.-W/1 bears the signature of Santosh Kumar. In cross-examination this witness categorically stated in para-10 he can’t say when Daudpur Branch of the Andhara bank was opened and he also can’t say on the opening of the said branch there was no permanent peon. In para-11 of the cross-examination this witness admits that he joined the Daudpur Branch in the year 2016 and at that time one Sanjay Kumar was permanent PTS and bank took the service of Santosh Kumar too. In para-13 of the cross- examination this witness categorically stated that Santosh Kumar received the payment in cash through vouchers. On tribunal query this witness categorically admits that Andhra Bank was merged in Union Bank of India, so no copy of the vouchers of Andhara Bank can be given but current vouchers of Union Bank of India can be placed. This witness further categorically stated in para-14 of the cross-examination that bank gave payment to the workman whenever he discharged his duties and he used to received weekly payment. In para-17 of the cross-examination this witness admits that the vouchers was issued to the workman in his name of Santosh. This witness further admits that in para- 18 of the cross-examination that the three vouchers of year-2017 is shown to him, is in the name of Santosh Kumar and there is his signature also. In para-20 of the cross-examination this witness categorically admits that the voucher of Rs. 3464/- is shown to him is the payment of seven days given to the workman. In para- 23 of the cross- examination this witness categorically admits that since Santosh Kumar was daily wager so he did not get any appointment letter and further in para-14 witness categorically stated that he can’t say whether the workman was given notice or any sort of compensation because he was transferred from said branch. 9. It is argued on behalf of the workman side Santosh Kumar the workman has worked in the Daudpur Branch of the management bank from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 and thereafter, this witness was terminated from 01.02.2017 which was duly corroborated by the workman himself in his evidence and he also filed some documents with regards to this payment received from the bank. It is also argued that workman filed attendance register i.e from 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 ( Ext.-W/2 ) i.e also strong proof the Santosh has discharged the duties in the said branch as daily wager. It is also argued that the than manager also put his initial over the attendance sheet of month of January 2017 i.e at page-19 of the attendance register marked as Ext.-W/3. It is further argued that of course workman could not produced all the payment vouchers because all the vouchers was not given by the management bank but the vouchers he produced of the year 2017 was duly admitted by the M.W-1 Prakash Deepak i.e in the name of Santosh Kumar it also shows that during the tenure of Prakash Deepak ( M.W-1 ) he was discharging the duties of daily wager it is further argued that there was no permanent peon posted in the said branch and the workman discharged his duties like a permanent employee of the bank as a sub-staff and he worked uninterruptedly continuously from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 work for more than 240 days so his termination covered U/S-2(OO) of the I.D.Act and without notice and compensation the termination of workman is a kind of unfair labour practice resorted by the bank. It is also argued that the duties of the workman was perennial in nature but all of sudden he was terminated and appointed a fresh hand ignoring the claim of workman i.e also violation the provision of Section 25 (G) & 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The workman side filed the matter of one Mintu Kumar whose dispute was decided in Reference Case No.- 06 (C) of 2006 by this tribunal was similar to the matter of this workman in which tribunal passed award in favour of the Mintu Kumar by reinstating him into the service of bank and also passed the order to regular his services. It was challenged by the management bank but finally the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.- 1135 of3726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2019 restored the award passed by this tribunal. Since workman has discharged the duties regular for the three years continuously so he is entitled for instatement for the services of the bank as sub-staff. 10. On the other hand representative of the management argued that the claim of the Santosh Kumar for his reinstatement is not at all established by the workman side because Santosh Kumar never discharged his daily wage work continuously in the said branch, no documentary proof is given for continuous duty in the Daudpur Branch. It is further argued that he attendance register produced by the workman is not authentic document because it is not prepared in the official register and there is no seal of the bank moreover, the claim of the workman there was no permanent staff posted in the said bank is totally false one Santosh Kumar PTS was posted in the said branch as permanent PTS. It is further argued that whenever workman gave his services to the Daudpur Branch he was paid accordingly. So the claim of the workman has no basis and since he was not a employee of the bank there is no question of termination. It is also argued that it is settled principle of law mere continuous service as a temporary or adhoc or daily wager can not confer him any right for the service if he did not worked against sanctioned post. There was no sanctioned post vacant in Daudpur Branch because Santosh Kumar was already posted as permanent PTS hence the claim of the workman is not at all sustainable. 11. Considering all the facts and the materials available on the record as discussed above and the submissions as advanced on behalf of both the sides this tribunal takes the first issue whether the Santosh Kumar Choudhary acquired status of workman U/S-2(S) of the I.D.Act. Section-2(S) defined about the workman:- [ 2 (S) “workman” means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person— (i) Who is subject to the Air Force, Act, 1950 (45 of 1950 ), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950 ), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 or 1957 ); or (ii) Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or (iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 56a [ ten thousand rupees ] per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.] In this regards this is the clear cut stance of Santosh Kumar that he was engaged as temporary peon right from opening of the branch of Andhra Bank at Daudpur Branch and he started discharging his duties as a temporary peon from 01.10.2014 onwards till his termination dt-31.01.2017, later on te Andhra Bank was merged in Union Bank of India and this is duly corroborated by the Santosh Kumar in his evidence as W.W-1 and this is not controverted by the management during the course of cross-examination rather management side admits that Santosh Kumar was engaged as daily wager for which he was duly paid. This tribunal further find that M.W-1 Prakash Deepak the management witness also admits in his evidence that he was Branch Manager of Daudpur Branch from 21.11.2016 to 03.06.2018 and during his tenure he, as a Branch Manager took the service of Santosh Kumar and one Sanjay was posted as PTS ( Part Time Sweeper) this version of management clearly shows that Santosh Kumar was engaged by the Daudpur Branch as a daily wager on being oral appointed by the than Branch Manager and there is no evidence given by the management side there was any peon ( sub-staff ) was posted in the said branch during the course of the services given by Santosh Kumar at Daudpur Branch. These all establishes that Santosh Kumar acquires the status of workman while discharging his duties at Daudpur Branch of Andhra Bank and thereafter Union Bank of India after merger till 31.01.2017 so this tribunal does not find force in the contention of the management that Santosh Kumar is not a workman. 12. So far as issue no.-(ii) is concerned, whether Santosh Kumar worked regularly from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 discharging duties as a temporary peon at Daudpur Branch. In this context Santosh Kumar as W.W-1 categorically supported his contention as asserted in his statement of claim that he was engaged as a temporary peon right from opening of the branch of Andhra Bank at Daudpur Branch from 01.10.2014 and he was discharging the duties of a temporary peon right from opening of the bank from 9.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M at the instruction of the Branch Manager. He also supported his different duties like the opening of the gate of bank premises thereafter some cleaning work, of table and counters and he also deposed that he often brought the cash from the chest to the cash counter and he was also discharged the duties of vouchers binding. This tribunal finds that management side did not controvert the duties discharged by Santosh Kumar at the Daudpur Branch by way of any cogent oral evidence or documentary evidence. This tribunal further finds that Santosh Kumar categorically stated that he was getting payment through debit vouchers initially he was getting Rs. 1800/- P.M after one year it was enhanced to Rs. 4000/- P.M and after six months he started receiving Rs. 12000/- P.M. In this connection Santosh Kumar proved the payment voucher of dt- 01.10.2014 i.e ( Ext.-W ) the payment of Rs. 420/- for the period of 23.09.2014 to 30.09.2014 @ Rs. 60/- per day this3727 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ext-W corroborated the contention of workman Santosh Kumar he was initially getting Rs. 1800/- P.M in the year 2014 for one year. Moreover, Santosh Kumar in his evidence clearly stated that the bank did not provide other vouchers. This tribunal further finds that Santosh Kumar filed a deputation letter of dt- 24.03.2015 ( Ext.-W/1 ) that shows that the then Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Daudpur Branch sent Santosh Kumar to Gopalganj Branch for bringing PC set. This document also establish this fact that there was no sub-staff posted at Daudpur Branch at that time that’s why Santosh Kumar was authorised by the then Branch Manager to bring the PC set. This kind of duty can be done only peon. In support of his continuous working from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 Santosh Kumar filed photo copy of attendance register i.e period of 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 (Ext.-W/2). This document Ext.W/2 shows, there is initial of Santosh Kumar on the attendance sheet whenever he discharged his duties from 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 there is bank seal also on each page of the attendance register i.e from ( Page-03 to 25 ) of the filed documents from the side of workman. This document also shows that one Sanjay Kumar was also putting his signature over the attendance register ( Ext.-W/2) as he was working as a PTS i.e duly admitted by the management side. This tribunal further finds that Santosh Kumar, during his deposition also proved the page 19 of attendance register as Ext.-W/3 that shows that there is signature of then Branch Manager Prakash Deepak ( Ext.-M/1 ) so this document attendance register ( Ext.-W/2) thoroughly establishes that Santosh Kumar was regularly discharging duties as a temporary peon from 11.12.2014 to 31.01.2017 because it bears the seal of the bank and on page 19 there is signature of then Branch Manager establishing that Santosh Kumar was regularly discharged his duties at Daudpur Branch right from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 there is no denial of this fact from the management sides by way of any cogent evidence moreover, M.W-1 Prakash Deepak clearly stated in his evidence that when he joined Daudpur Branch in the year- 2016 as a Manager, Bank took the services of Santosh Kumar and at that time one Sanjay Kumar was PTS. He also admits that Santosh Kumar was getting payment through vouchers at weekly basis and this witness also admits the three vouchers of year 2017 shown from the workman side that is issued in the name of Santosh Kumar and all the three vouchers bears his signature as a passing officer. This tribunal further finds that the vouchers admitted by the management witness ( M.W-1 ) of dt- 06.10.2017, the payment of Rs. 2970/- for the working of 01.09.2017 to 10.09.2017, 2nd vouchers is of dt- 06.10.2017 too i.e payment of Rs. 4455/- for the working period 11.09.2017 to 20.09.2017, 3rd vouchers is of 21.11.2017 showing the payment of Rs. 2324/- given to the Santosh Kumar for his five days work. This tribunal further finds that M.W-1 also admits that the voucher of payment Rs. 3464/- i.e the period working from 11.10.2017 to 17.10.2017 i.e issued on 14.11.2017. This admission of the management witness clearly shows that bank was taking the services of Santosh Kumar regularly as a temporary peon corroborates the claim of the Santosh Kumar so this issue is also thoroughly established by the workman by oral and documentary evidence. So far as issue no.- (iii) is concerned that is the core issue of the reference. In this context workman alleged that his service was abruptly terminated on 01.02.2017 however he was discharging duties as a temporary peon in Daudpur Branch of Andhra Bank from the opening of the said branch regularly. This tribunal finds and hold that Santosh Kumar has thoroughly establishes he has continuous discharged duties like a temporary peon at Daudpur Branch at Andhra Bank for more than 240 days in each year till his terminating dt-01.02.2017. This tribunal further finds and hold that there was no permanent peon posted in the Daudpur Branch of Andhra Bank that’s why management bank took the service of Santosh Kumar as a temporary peon regularly and management also did not place any cogent evidence that there was any permanent peon posted in the Daudpur Branch. This tribunal further finds that management has admitted this fact one Sanjay Kumar was posted as PTS but he was not discharging duties of the peon at Daudpur Branch that’s why management bank took the services of Santosh Kumar as a peon though he was orally appointed upon opening the Daudpur Branch of Andhra Bank. This tribunal further find and hold that taking the services of Santosh Kumar for fairly long time from 01.10.2014 to 31.01.2017 clearly shows that bank was in need of services of Santosh Kumar and utilized his services as a temporary peon for more than two years continuously hence the action of the management in terminating the services of Santosh Kumar without compliance of provision of section-25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 can’t be held justified and legal. This tribunal further finds and hold that the workman side pointed out the award passed by this tribunal of one workman Mintu Kumar in Reference Case No.- 06(C) of 2006 i.e very similar to the case of Santosh Kumar. This tribunal also gone through the case of Mintu Kumar and found the contention of the workman side is justified in this case also. 13. On the ultimate analysis of all the facts and material available on the records as discussed above this tribunal finds and hold that workman Santosh Kumar has thoroughly established his claim by way of oral and documentary evidence so he is entitled for reinstatement in the services of the bank as a sub-staff now called Union Bank of India from 01.02.2017 with all consequential benefits. Under the aforesaid facts this is the considered opinion of this tribunal Santosh Kumar is entitled for his reinstatement in the services of management bank as sub-staff ( class- IV grade ) from 01.02.2017 with all consequential benefits. Accordingly management of the Andhra Bank now called Union Bank of India is directed to reinstate the services of Santosh Kumar as a sub-staff within two months from date of publication / gazettee of this award.This award is effected after date of publication in gazette. This is my award accordingly. Dictated & Corrected by me. 19.07.2024 MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer3728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1664.—औद्योनिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योनिक fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योनिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV (a48/2003) izdkf”kr djrh gS [स.ं ,y-12012/130/1999-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उप णनिेशक New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2024 S.O. 1664—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank their workmen. [No. L-12012/130/1999- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ihBklhu vf/kdkjh jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh Reference No. L-12012/130/1999-IR (B-I) Dated: 25.07.2003 Jherh deyk nos h lSuh iRuh Lo- Jh eksgu yky lSuh] fuoklh&fu;j lqokZ ¶ykSj fey] egulj] ftyk& >qU>qu w ¼jkt-½A -------izkFkhZ 1- ofj"B izca/kd] cMkSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] gSM vkWfQl] lhdj] jktLFkku& 332001 --------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh mifLFkr%& % Jh vkj- lh- tSu] izfrfu/kh & izkFkhZA % Jh izoh.k iqjksfgr] vfHkHkk"kd &foi{khx.kA 1- Je e=a ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 25-07-2003 dk s vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k es a fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %&3729 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] “Whether the action of the management of Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank Sikar in terminating the services of Smt. Kamla Devi Saini w.e.f. 01-01- 1982 is justified? If not, to what relief the disputant concerned is entitled? 2- rnqijkar fnukad 11-11-2005 dks Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ,d la'kks/ku jQs jasl vkn's k tkjh djr s gq;s eyw jQs jasl vkn's k fnukad 25-07-2003 eas izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 01-01-1982 tkMs s tku s dk vkn's k fn;k x;kA 3- fnukad 12-11-2013 dks Je e=a ky; }kjk foi{kh cSad ¼'ks[kkokVh xzkeh.k cSad½ dk foy; jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad eas gks tku s ds dkj.k foi{kh cSad dk uke jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad ds :Ik esa la'kksf/kr fd;kA 4- rnqijkar fnukad 18-09-2015 dks Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj u s iqu% ,d la'kks/ku vkn's k tkjh dj jktLFkku xzkeh.k cSad ds LFkku ij cMkSnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad i< s tku s dk la'kks/ku vkns'k tkjh fd;kA bl la'kks/ku vkn's k ds lanHkZ es a la'kksf/kr okn 'kh"kZd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;kA 5- fnukad 10-01-2006 dks izkFkhZ u s viu s nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djr s gq;s ;g dgk fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 08-09-1978 dk s ikVZ VkbZe eslUs tj ds in ij dh xbZ FkhA fu;qfDr ds ckn fnukad 31-12-1981 rd izkFkhZ foi{kh laLFkku eas dk;Z djrh jghA fnukad 01-01-1982 dks foi{kh ds 'kk[kk izca/kd u s izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;kA fnukad 01-01-1982 dk s lsokeqDr dju s ds iwoZ izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru ;k NaVuh eqvkots dk Hkqxrku ugh a fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a dk ikyu ugh a fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh lsokefqDr ds le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"B vuds Jfed dk;Zjr Fks ftUgs a j[k fy;k x;k vkSj lsokefqDr ds ckn u;s Jfedks a dks Hkh HkrhZ fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 G vkSj H dk foi{kh u s mYy?a ku fd;kA vr% okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr fnukad 01-01-1982 dk s voS/k ?kksf"kr djr s gq;s lsok eas fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru ifjykHkks a lfgr izkFkhZ dk s iqu% lsok es a fy;k tkosA 6- foi{kh us viu s oknksRrj eas okn ds rF;ksa dk s vLohdkj fd;kA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd mudh egulj 'kk[kk es a lQkbZ dk;Z o ihus dk ikuh Hkjus ds fy;s izkFkhZ ls va’kdkyhu dk;Z dju s ds fy;s tks izfr fnu vk/ks ls ,d ?kUV s dk dk;Z Fkk] 20 :- ekfld nj ls ekSf[kd :Ik ls dk;Z fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk s dHkh Hkh lsokeDq r ugha fd;k x;k] cfYd mlus Lo;a gh dke ij vkuk can dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us ;g ekeyk 17 o"kZ ckn mBk;k gSA dsUnz ljdkj us Hkh izdj.k dk s foyfacr ekur s gq;s bls U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr ugh a fd;kA rnqijkar jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds vkn's k ij ;g ekeyk Hkstk x;k gSA Je laxBu vkSj cSad ds chp fnukad 29-07-1991 dk s tks le>kSrk gqvk Fkk mlds rgr 21 ikV Z VkbZe O;fDr;ks a ds laca/k eas tc Hkh fu;fer fjfDr;k gksxha mUgs a izkFkfedrk ls iqu% fu;kstu dk volj fn;k tkuk r; gqvk FkkA izkFkhZ ds dke ij u vku s ds dkj.k Jh eksrh yky dks lQkbZ o ikuh Hkjus gsrq j[kk x;k FkkA va'kdkyhu lQkbZ deZpkfj;ks a dh dkbs Z ofj"Brk lwph ugh gksrhA foi{kh u s vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh izko/kku dk mYy?a ku ugha fd;kA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dk s lCth cspu s ,oa nw/k ds O;olk; gsrq _`.k Hkh fn;k x;k FkkA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA 7- izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds oknksRrj ds mijkar vfrfjDr dFku Hkh izLrqr fd;]s vkSj foi{kh ds vfHkopuks a dks vLohdkj fd;kA 8- izkFkhZ u s vius lk{; eas Lo;a izkFkhZ deyk nos h dk s ijhf{kr fd;kA izy[s kh; lk{; eas izn'kZ W-1 le>kSrk iznf'kZr fd;kA 9- foi{kh us viu s lk{; eas NAW-1 lrh’k pUnz xks;y dks ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izys[kh; lk{; eas izn'kZ R-1 izn'kZ R-2 rFkk izn'kZ M-1 ls izn'kZ M-3 izy[s kks a dks iznf'kZr fd;kA 10- fnukad 28-05-2024 dks eSau s mHk; i{k ds izfrfuf/k@vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds rdZ lqus]a ,oa izLrqr fd;s x;s fof/kd n"`Vkarks a eas ikfjr fof/k ,oa lk{; ij euu fd;kA 11- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dk s fnukad 08-09-1978 dks va'kdkyhu lQkbZ ,oa ikuh Hkjus gsrq 20 :- ekfld nj ls fu;qDr fd;k tkuk vkSj izkFkhZ dk fnukad 01-01-1982 rd dk;Zjr jguk foi{kh ds lk{kh lrh'k pUnz xks;y }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZZ R-1 eas izkFkhZ dks fnukad 24-10-1981 rd ekfld Hkqxrku djuk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ deyk nos h u s vius 'kiFk i= eas fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982 rd yxkrkj dke djus dk tk s dFku fd;k gS mls foi{kh }kjk fdlh fojks/kh lq>ko ds ek/;e ls [kf.Mr dju s dk iz;kl Hkh3730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ugh a fd;k x;k gSA va'kdkyhu ;k iw.kZdkyhu nksuks a gh Jfed deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk eas vkr s gSA foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a dk;Z NksMdj pyh xbZ] fdlh izdkj fl} ugh a gqvk gS] D;ksfad dk;Z NksM+us ds mijkar foi{kh }kjk mls dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA izn'kZ M-3 le>kSrs ds lkFk lyaXu lwph ¼vuqyaXud&,½ eas izHkwn;ky 'kekZ uked Jfed dh fu;qfDr uoEcj] 1981 es a izkFkhZ ds ckn gqbZ Fkh] fQj Hkh mls fu;fer fu;qfDr n s nh xbZA izkFkhZ dk uke bl lwph eas bl dkj.k lfEefyr ugh a fd;k x;k fd og dke ij ugha vk jgh FkhA tcfd bl lwph eas ,sl s O;fDr;ks a ds uke Hkh gS ftUgs a lsok ls gVk fn;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr;ks a dks foi{kh }kjk lsok eas j[kk tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA vr% okn Lohdkj fd;k tkosA 12- mUgksus viu s rdksZa ds leFkZu es a fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;s %& 1- d:.kk HkêkpkthZ cuke LVsV vkWQ osLV caxky 2007 ¼114½ FLR 352 2- lsdzsVjh ¼iksfylh½ jhtuy Mk;jDs Vj ¼QwM½ ,Eiykbt ,slks- cuke ,Q-lh-vkbZ- 2010 ¼124½ FLR 369 3- fMohtuy eSustj U;w bf.M;k ,’;ksjsla da- fy- cuke ,- 'kadj fyxa e 2008 AIR SCW 7325 4- LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk cuke ih-vks- b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy de ysoj dksVZ] vackyk 2019 LLR 412 5- LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke gjh’k pUnz 'kekZ 2006 ¼4½ RLW 3028 6- ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j o vU; cuke ys[kjkt 2005 ¼12½ lqizhe dksVZ dslts 181 7- vt;iky flag cuke gfj;k.kk os;j gkmflax dksi- 2015 ¼145½ FLR 425 8- xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ¼2015½ 12 lqizhe dksVZ dslts 754 9- enu flag cuke tt ysoj dkVs Z t;iqj D.B. C.W. fiVh'ku u-a 129@1987 jkt- mPp U;k;ky; fu.kZ; frfFk 22-04-1987 10- iatkc y.s M Moyis easV ,.M fjDyes ’sku dksiZ- fy- p.Mhx< cuke ih-vks- yos j dksVZ] p.Mhx< 1990 ¼3½ SCC 682 11- lwjtey cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku S.B. C.W. fiVh'ku ua- 1284@2004 fu.kZ; frfFk 21-05-2007 12- xkSjh 'kadj fo’odekZ cuke bZxy fLizax b.MLVªht izk- fy- 1994 III LLJ 689 13- LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk o vU; cuke fot; dqekj 2001 ¼II½ LLJ 1592 14- E;qfufliy dkjikjs ’sku vkWQ fnYyh cuke Jh lq[kohj flag 1994 ¼69½ FLR 17 13- foi{kh ds vfHkHkk"kd dk ;g fojks/kh rdZ gS fd izn'kZ M-3 le>kSr s ds lkFk layXud lwph eas izkFkhZ dk uke bl dkj.k lfEefyr ugh a gS fd og va'kdkyhu eslUs tj ugha FkhA izkFkhZ Lo;a gh dk;Z NksM dj pyh xbZ FkhA va'kdkyhu nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedks a dh lsok ds laca/k eas dksbZ foHkkxh; tkWp fd;k tkuk] ;k mUgs a uksfVl fn;s tku s dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh a gSA blfy, izkFkhZ ds u vku s ij nlw js O;fDr;ks a dks bl dk;Z gsrq j[k fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ us ;g fookn vR;f/kd foyEc ls izLrqr fd;k gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA 14- mUgksus viu s rdZ ds leFkZu es a fuEukafdr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;kA 1- dsjy LVVs bys- cksMZ cuke Vh-ih- dqUgkyEq ek AIR 1977 lqizhe dksVZ 282 15- mHk;i{k ds vfHkopuks a ,oa lk{; ij fopkj ds Ik’pkr bl fookn es a fuEukafdr fopkj.kh; fcUn q mRiUu gq;s gS%& 1- D;k izkFkhZ u s mldh lsok lekfIr frfFk 01-01-1982 ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k eas foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k rFkk foi{kh }kjk lsokefqDr ds iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a dk vuqikyu ugha fd; s tku s ls ;g lsokefqDr voS/k gS\ -- --------------izkFkhZ 2- D;k izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd;s tkr s le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj vuds Jfed dk;Zjr Fks] rFkk izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dju s ds mijkar u;s Jfedks a dh HkrhZ Hkh foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ\ -----------------izkFkhZ3731 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3- vuqrks"k%& 16- fopkj.kh; fcUnqvks a ij dzfed fu.kZ; bl izdkj gS%& 17- 18- izkFkhZ Jherh deyk nos h us viu s lk{; ds 'kiFk i= eas ;g dgk gS fd mldh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku eas fnukad 08-09-1978 dks nSfud osru ij lUns’k okgd@ihvksu ds :Ik eas gqbZ FkhA mlu s fnukad 31-12-1981 rd fujarj dk;Z fd;k vkSj izR;sd o"kZ es a 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k FkkA bl lk{kh ls dh xbZ izfrijh{kk es a mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fu;qfDr i= i=koyh eas ugh a gSaA rFkk 240 fnu lky eas dke dju s dk mlds ikl dkbs Z dkxt gks rks /;ku ugha gSA bl fLFkfr eas izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds v/khu ,d dys.Mj o"kZ es a 240 fnu dk;Z dju s laca/kh dkbs Z vfHkys[k izLrqr ugh a fd;k gSA fdarq foi{kh ds lk{kh NAW-1 lrh'k pUnz xks;y u s viu s izfrijh{k.k eas ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982 rd izkFkhZ dk s 20 :- eghuk etnwjh nh xbZA lk{kh ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd geus ,slk dkbs Z nLrkost is'k ugh a fd;k gS tk s fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982 rd ds e/; izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr jgus ds laca/k eas gksA bl izdkj ,d vksj rks foi{kh ;g Lohdkj djr s gS fd mUgksus a fnukad 08-09-1978 ls 01-01-1982 rd izkFkhZ dk s ekfld etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k rFkk nlw jh vksj ;g Hkh Lohdkj djr s gS fd bl vof/k eas izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr jgus laca/kh dksbZ izy[s k mUgksus a izLrqr ugh a fd;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; u s viu s fu.kZ; ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j o vU; cuke y[s kjkt eas ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd tc deZdkj u s Lo;a dks 240 fnu dk;Z dju s ds laca/k esa ijhf{kr fd;k gS rFkk izfrijh{kk eas deZdkj ls dk;Z vof/k ds laca/k eas dksbZ iz'u gh ugh fd;k x;k gks] rks ;g mi/kkfjr fd;k tkosxk fd izca/ku i{k u s mDr vof/k dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA 19- vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g vk{ksi gS fd izkFkhZ ls izfrfnu vk/kk ls ,d ?kaVk gh dk;Z djok;k tkrk Fkk blfy, mls 20 :- ekfld nj ls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk FkkA va'kdkyhu dk;Z ds fy;s bl fLFkfr es a ,d o"kZ dh vof/k eas 240 fnu dk;Z fnol dh x.kuk fd;k tkuk U;k; laxr ugh a gSA bl laca/k eas ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s viu s fu.kZ; fMohtuy eSustj U;w bf.M;k ,’;ksjs asl da- fy- cuke ,- 'kadj fyaxe eas ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd va'kdkyhu deZpkjh ;fn fu;kstd ds fu;U=.k ds v/khu gks rks og deZdkj dh ifjHkk"kk es a vkosxk rFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 B vkSj 25 F ds izko/kkuks a dk laj{k.k mls n;s gksxkA ekuuh; iatkc gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; us LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk cuke ih-vks- b.MLVªh;y fVªC;quy de yos j dksVZ] vackyk ds fu.kZ; eas ;g dgk gS fd va'kdkyhu Lohij Hkh deZdkj gSA mls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a dk laj{k.k izkIr gSA bl rF;kRed vkSj fof/kd ifjn`’; es a foi{kh dk ;g rdZ fd izkFkhZ }kjk ,d o"kZ es a 240 fnu dk;Z dh x.kuk va'kdkyhu dk;Z ds vk/kkj ij ugh a dh tkuh pkfg;s] Lohdk;Z rdZ ugha gSA 20- vfHkHkk"kd foi{kh dk ;g Hkh izcy rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a u s gh dke ij vkuk can dj fn;k vkSj mUgksua s izkFkhZ dk s lsokeqDr ugh a fd;kA blfy, izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr NaVuh ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k }kjk bl rdZ dk fojks/k djrs gq;s ;g dgk x;k fd ;fn izkFkhZ Lo;a dke dk s NksMdj pyh Hkh xbZ gks rks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks dkbs Z uksfVl u fn;s tku s vkSj dkbs Z dk;Zokgh u dju s dh fLFkfr eas vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) ds varxZr ;g lsokefqDr] NaVuh gh gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s iatkc ys.M Moyis easV ,.M fjDyses’ku dkis Z- fy- p.Mhx< cuke ih-vks- yos j dksVZ] p.Mhx< rFkk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; u s enu flag cuke tt yos j dksVZ t;iqj ds fu.kZ;ks a es a ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 (oo) ds varxZr ÞNaVuhÞ vfHkO;fDr eas viokfnr n'kkvks a ds vfrfjDr izR;sd izdkj dh lsok lekfIr lekfo"V gSA lsok dk ifjR;kx pwWafda fdlh Hkh viokfnr fn’kk es a lekfgr ugh a gS] vr% og NaVuh gSA blfy, fu;kstd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a ls mueqfDr ugha ys ldrkA 21- ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; u s lwjtey cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku rFkk ekuuh; cksEcs mPp U;k;ky; us xkSjh 'kadj fo’odekZ cuke bZxy fLizax b.MLVªht izk- fy-] ekuuh; iatkc gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; u s LVVs vkWQ gfj;k.kk o vU; cuke fot; dqekj rFkk ekuuh; fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; u s E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ fnYyh cuke Jh lq[kohj flag ds fu.kZ;ks a eas bl laca/k eas ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd dk;Z Lo;a NksMdj tku s dh fn'kk eas deZdkj dks ;fn uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k gks vkSj deZdkj fu;kstd }kjk mldh lsok lekIr djus dk dFku djs] rks ;g ugha ekuk tkosxk fd deZdkj us lsok dk ifjR;kx fd;k gSA ,d ckj ;g LFkkfir gks tk;s fd deZdkj dks fdlh fu'fpr vof/k ds fy, dk;Z ij ugha j[kk x;k] rks deZdkj dk s dk;Z ij yus s ls eukgh fof/k ds vu:q Ik gksuh pkfg;sA ;fn deZdkj dke dks NksM n s rks mlds fo:} tkWp dh tkuh pkfg;sA bu fu.kZ;ks a eas ikfjr fof/k ds3732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] izdk’k eas foi{kh }kjk izLrqr rdZ lkjghu izekf.kr gksrs k gS vkSj ;g Li"V:Ik ls izekf.kr gksrs k gS fd izkFkhZ u s foi{kh ds v/khu fnukad 01-01-1982 dk s dh xbZ lsokefqDr ds iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ mls dksbZ uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku foi{kh us ugha fd;kA foi{kh u s Hkh ;g ugh a dgk gS fd lsokeqfDfr ds iwoZ mUgksua s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a dk vuiq kyu fd;k gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ds fu.kZ; es a vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a ds foijhr ikfjr fd; s x;s lsok lekfIr vkn's k dk s 'kwU; ,oa voS/k ekuk gSA 22- ekuuh; dydRrk mPp U;k;ky; u s viu s fu.kZ; d:.kk HkêkpkthZ th cuke LVsV vkWQ osLV caxky rFkk lsdzsVjh ¼iksfylh½ jhtuy Mk;jDs Vj ¼QwM½ ,Eiykbt ,slks- cuke ,Q-lh-vkbZ- ds fu.kZ;ks a eas ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd tc vf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g iz’u gks fd lsokeqfDr voS/k gS ;k ugh rks vf/kdj.k ;g tkWp ugha dj ldrk gS fd ;g lsokeqfDr Hkh gS] vFkok ughAa vf/kdj.k dks ek= izsf"kr fd;s x;s fookn ds fcUnqvksa dk s gh U;k; fu.khZr djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gSA vU; vuq"kkafxd fcUnqvks a ij ughaA 23- ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; u s LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke gjh'k pUnz 'kekZ ds fu.kZ; eas ;g dgk gS fd vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dh vf/kdkjrk jQs jasl ds fuoZapuks a rd gh lhfer gSA vf/kdj.k ds le{k jQs jasl vkn's k dks pqukSrh ugh nh tk ldrhA bu fu.kZ;ks a ds izdk'k eas bl vf/kdj.k }kjk izkFkhZ ds laca/k eas izsf"kr fookn ftleas izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dh oS/krk ek= dk ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk gS] rd gh vf/kdj.k dks {ks=kf/kdkj miyC/k gS mlls ij s ughaA 24- bl foospu ds mijkar pwfda izkFkhZ dh lsokefqDr fnukad 01-01-1982 vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a ds foijhr dh xbZ izekf.kr gqbZ gS] ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k eas fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 25- 26- bl fcUnq ds laca/k eas izkFkhZ u s ;g dgk gS fd mls lsokeqDr djr s le; mlls twfu;j dbZ Jfed laLFkku es a dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr fd; s tkrs le; mlls twfu;j Jh eksrhyky dk;Zjr FksA eksrhyky dks lsok eas j[ks tku s ds dkj.k gh mls lsokeqDr dj fn;kA fnukad 19-07-1991 dk s lEiUu le>kSrs ls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds le; mlls twfu;j Jfed dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ ls dh xbZ izfrijh{kk eas ,slk dksbZ fojks/kh lq>ko ugh a fn;k x;k gS fd ftlls izkFkhZ ds mi;qZDr dFku fdlh izdkj [kf.Mr gksA foi{kh us viu s oknksRrj eas ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds dke ij ugha vku s ds dkj.k Jh eksrhyky dk s va’kdkyhu lQkbZ dk;Z ,oa ikuh Hkjus gsrq j[kk x;k Fkk] ftldk s fnukad 24-08-1987 dk s fu;fer fd;k x;kA foi{kh ds lk{kh lrh’k pUnz xks;y u s bl rF; dh iqf"V Hkh dh gSA izn'kZ M-3 mHk;i{k ds e/; fnukad 29-07-1991 dks lEiUu gqvk le>kSrk gSA ftlds lkFk layXu vuqyXud 1 eas izHkw n;ky 'kekZ uked Jfed dk uke lfEefyr gS ftlus cSad dh 'kk[kk es a uoEcj] 1981 eas dk;Z izkjaHk fd;k Fkk vkSj mls Hkh foi{kh }kjk lsok ls gVk;k x;k Fkk] ftldk okn lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ ds ;gkW yfacr gksuk n’kkZ;k x;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh lrh’k pUnz xks;y u s izfrijh{kk es a ;g dgk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd bl rkfydk eas lsok ls gVk;s x;s O;fDr Hkh lfEefyr gaSA izkFkhZ dk uke bl rkfydk eas blfy, 'kkfey ugh a gS D;ksfd og dke ij gh ugh vk jgh FkhA bl fLFkfr eas ;g izekf.kr gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jh eksrhyky uked O;fDr dk s izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds mijkar lQkbZ dk;Z o ikuh Hkjus gsrq va'kdkyhu j[kk x;k vkSj blh izdkj izHkw n;ky 'kekZ uked O;fDr dk s Hkh izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj gksus ds mijkar Hkh le>kSrs ds varxZr fu;qfDr es a ojh;rk fn;s tku s gsrq mi;qDr ekuk x;kA 27- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ds fu.kZ; eas ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G o H ds fo:} ikfjr lsok lekfIr vkn's k 'kwU; ,oa voS/k gSA bl foospu ds mijkar ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds i{k eas fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 28- 15- foi{kh dk ;g vk{ksi gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk ;g fookn 17 o"kZ ckn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks vR;f/kd foyafcr gS blfy, fujLr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA mUgksus a bl lanHkZ eas ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; dsjy LVsV by-s cksMZ cuke Vh-ih- dqUgkyqEek izLrqr fd;kA bl fu.kZ; es a ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s ;g dgk gS fd fyfeV’sku ,DV ds vuqPNsn 137 ds izko/kku lHkh ;kfpdkvksa o izkFkZuk i=ks a ij iz;ksT; gksrs gSA bl laca/k es a3733 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ;g mYy[s k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd leqfpr ljdkj }kjk fnukad 25-07-2003 dks ;g fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks izsf"kr fd; s tkus ds Ik’pkr fnukad 05-11-2003 dks izkFkhZ us nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr dj fn;k FkkA leqfpr ljdkj }kjk bl fookn dk s U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr fd; s tku s ds ckn vf/kdj.k dk s ;g {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS fd og fookn ds foyEa c ls izLrqrhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij U;k;fu.kZ;u ls badkj djsA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; u s viu uohure fu.kZ; xksihjke ;kno cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku S.B. C.W. fiVh'ku u-a 11575@2019 fu.kZ; frfFk 17-08-2023 ¼Lo;a vf/kdj.k }kjk½ eas ;g dgk gS fd ;fn ,d O;fDr foyca ;k ykijokgh dk nks"kh gS rks Je U;k;ky; ds fy, ;g ,d vk/kkj gks ldrk gS fd og vuqrks"k nus s ls badkj dj n s ;k foxr osru dk vuqrks"k u n s fdarq leqfpr ljdkj fookn dk s U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr dju s ls badkj ugha dj ldrh gSA blds vfrfjDr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s viu s fu.kZ; vtk;o flag cuke ljfgan dks vkWijfsVo ekdsZfVxa de izkslfslax lfoZl lkslk;Vh fy- o vU; ¼1999½ 6 SCC 82 ¼Lo;a vf/kdj.k }kjk½ eas ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd fyfeV's ku ,DV dh vuqlwph eas of.kZr vuqPNsn 137 ds izko/kku vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds varxZr dk;Zokfg;ks a ij iz;ksT; ugha gSA 16- izkFkhZ us viu s nkos ds vfHkdFku eas lsok eas fujarjrk o foxr osru ifjykHkks a lfgr lsok eas iquLFkkZiu dk vuqrks"k ekWxk gS fdarq bl fookn ds yfacr jgrs gq, gh izkFkhZ dh vk;q lsok fuo`Rr dh ifjlhek dk s ikj dj pqdh gS blfy, izkFkhZ dks lsok eas cgky fd;k tkuk laHko gh ugh a jgk gSA bl fLFkfr eas ;g ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd D;k izkFkhZ lsokefqDr ds mijkar fdlh ykHkizn fu;kstu ;k lsok es a jgh gS o /kuksiktZu fd;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh us viu s eq[; ijh{k.k eas dgk gS fd lsokefqDr ds iwoZ ls gh izkFkhZ u s foi{kh cSad ls O;olk; gsrq _`.k fy;k Fkk vkSj mldk iquHkqZxrku dj fn;kA lsokefqDr ds mijkar fnukad 13-12-1990 dks Hkh izkFkhZ us Ms;jh O;olk; gsrq foi{kh ls _`.k fy;k ftlds 2006 rd gh 68265@&:- cdk;k FksA bu dFkuks a dks izkFkhZ }kjk izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku [kf.Mr dju s dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy, ;s dFku izkFkhZ }kjk Lohd`r dj fy, x;s izekf.kr gksrs gSA bu rRoks a ds vfLrRo eas ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr ds iwoZ ls gh O;olk; lapkfyr dj jgh Fkh vkSj lsok lekfIr ds ckn Hkh og O;olk; lapkfyr djrs gq;s ykHkizn fu;kstu eas Fkh mlh dkj.k mlu s cSad ls fy, gq;s _`.kks a dk iquHkqZxrku dj fn;k o iqu% _`.k yds j /kujkf'k O;olk; eas fuos'k dhA izkFkhZ bl izdkj lsokeqfDr ds mijkar csjkstxkj ugh a jgh gSA izkFkhZ ,d va’kdkyhu vkdfLed Jfed Fkh ftls lQkbZ dk;Z o ikuh Hkjus tSls vYidkyhu dk;Z gsrq ek= 20 :- ekfld osru ij dk;Z ij yxk;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk caSd ls _`.k ysdj O;olkf;d dk;Z cSad ds v/khu fu;kstu ds nkSjku Hkh fd;k tkrk Fkk bl izdkj ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd cSad ds fu;kstu eas og iw.kZ dkfyd deZdkj oLrqr% ugh a Fkh] vkSj viuk futh O;olk; Hkh djrh FkhA blfy, bl rF;kRed ifjn`’; eas eqnzkLQhfr o Hkfo"; eas gksus okyh laHkkfor osruo`f} dks n`f"Vxr j[kr s gq;s bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vf/ker ls izkFkhZ dks ,d yk[k :Ik;s ,deq'r izfrdj fnyok;s tku s ij U;k;fgr lk/ku gks ldsxkA 17- vr% fnukad 01-01-1982 dks foi{kh }kjk dh xbZ izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr dk s voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA bl voS/k lsok lekfIr ds ifj.kke Lo:Ik izkFkhZ foi{kh ls ,d yk[k :i;s izfrdj ,deq'r izkIr dju s dh vf/kdkjh gSA foi{kh bl jkf’k dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dk s nks ekg dh vof/k es a djs a vU;Fkk Hkqxrku gksus rd bl jkf’k ij izkFkhZ] 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gksxhA 18- Je e=a ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 19- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosAa jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1665.—औद्योनिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV caSd ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdk s vkSj muds dedZ kjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V औद्योनिक fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योनिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; t;iqj ds iapkV (a91/2012) idz kf”kr djrh gS [स.ं ,y-12012/58/2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उप णनिेशक3734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2024 S.O. 1665—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 91/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India their workmen. [No. L-12012/58/2012- IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ihBklhu vf/kdkjh jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh Reference No. L-12012/58/2012-IR (B-I) Dated: 16.10.2012 Jh ekWxhyky cqudj ¼e`rd½ iq= Lo- Jh x.ks'k jke cqudj] ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k 1@1 Jherh deyk nos h] ¼iRuh½ 1@2 lqeu oekZ] ¼iq=½ 1@3 [kq'kcw oekZ] ¼iq=h½ 1@4 eerk oekZ] ¼iq=h½ 1@5 dqynhi oekZ] ¼iq=½ 1@6 yksds'k oekZ] ¼iq=½ lHkh fuoklh& ?kksMhyk dh <k.kh] ccsjokyks dh <k.kh] tkscusj] t;iqj ¼jkt-½A -------izkFkhZx.k 1- eq[; izca/kd] LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] fryd ekxZ] lh&Ldhe] t;iqj& 2- 'kk[kk izca/kd] ¼dysDVªVs 'kk[kk½] LVVs cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] cuhikdZ] t;iqjA --------vizkFkhZx.k@foi{kh mifLFkr%& % Jh ,e-,Q- csx] vfHkHkk"kd & izkFkhZA % Jh mn; 'kekZ] vfHkHkk"kd ¼Jh vkj-ds- tSu] vfHkHkk"kd dh vksj ls½ &foi{khx.kA 1- Je e=a ky; Hkkjr ljdkj ubZ fnYyh] }kjk fnukad 16-10-2012 dk s vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 ¼1½ ¼Mh½ o 2A ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks ds vuqlj.k es a fuEukafdr vkS|ksfxd fookn U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %& “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Mangi Lal Bunkar w.e.f. 10.12.1989 is legal and justified? To what relief Shri Mangi Lal is entitled?”3735 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2- izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls fnukad 20- 05- 2013 dks nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djr s gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 16- 07- 1985 dk s nSfud osru Hkksxh pijklh ds in ij LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkujs ,.M t;iqj rRdkyhu dysDVªVs 'kk[kk t;iqj eas gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ u s 09- 12- 1989 dk s izkFkhZ dh lsok;s a voS/k :Ik ls lekIr dj nhA foi{kh laLFkku es a dk;Z dk dksbZ vHkko ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds ckn Hkh pijklh ds in ij u;h fu;qfDr;kW a dh tkrh jgh gSA fdarq izkFkhZ dks dksbZ izkFkfedrk ugh a nh xbZA lsok lekIr dju s ls iwoZ dkbs Z ofj"Brk lwph Hkh ugha cukbZA izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ ds 12 eghuks a eas rFkk lsok ds izR;sd o"kZ eas 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;kA fdarq lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ izkFkhZ dk s ,d ekg dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA blfy, izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G o H ,oa fu;e 78 ds fo:} gSA vr% izkFkhZ ds lsokefqDr vkns'k dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djr s gq;s lsok es a fujarjrk ,oa foxr osru ifjykHk lfgr izkFkhZ dks iqu% lsok eas fy;s tku s dk vkn's k fn;k tkosA 3- fnukad 28- 01- 2014 dks foi{khx.k u s oknksRrj izLrqr djr s gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh ds chp fu;kstd ,oa fu;ksftr dk laca/k dHkh ugha jgkA izkFkhZ us cSad eas yxkrkj dk;Z dHkh ugh a fd;kA ek= vkdfLed izd`fr dk dk;Z le;&le; ij izkFkhZ }kjk fd;k x;kA ftldk Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dk s fd;k x;k] tks mlu s fcuk fdlh vkifRr ds izkIr Hkh fd;k gSA izkFkhZ u s fookn dks dkQh foyEc ls mBk;k gS] tks Lohdk;Z ugha gSA izkFkhZ dk s fnukad 16- 07- 1985 ls cSad dh dysDVsªV 'kk[kk cuhikdZ eas vko’;drk vuq:Ik nfSud rkSj ij j[kk x;k FkkA mlus fnukad 31- 10- 1985 rd dk;Z fd;k blds ckn rhu o"kZ ds varjky ls ebZ] 1988 eas cSad ds S.M.S. gkbos 'kk[kk eas fnukad 15- 06- 1988 rd dk;Z fd;kA fnukad 07- 12- 1989 rd izkFkhZ us 130 fnu dk;Z fd;k FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ u s fdlh o"kZ eas 240 fnu rd dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh pijklh ds in ij ugh a jgkA izkFkhZ dksbZ vuqrks"k iku s dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA 4- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnukad 12-01-2015 dks foi{kh ds oknksRrj dk vfrfjDr dFku Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;kA 5- izkFkhZ us viu s lk{; eas Lo;a izkFkhZ ekWxhyky cqudj dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izkFkhZ u s vius lk{; eas WW- 2 txnh'k] -3 fd'ku flag dks ijhf{kr fd;kA vkSj izys[kh; lk{; eas izn'kZ W-1 ls izn'kZ W-9 rd izy[s k iznf'kZr fd;sA 6- foi{khx.k us viu s lk{; eas iadt xqIrk] lgk;d egkizca/kd dk s ijhf{kr fd;kA dksbZ izys[k iznf'kZr ugha fd;kA 7- ;g fookn ewyr% LVVs cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds izca/ku ds fo:} lanfHkZr gqvk Fkk fdarq dkykUrj eas LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkujs ,.M t;iqj dk foy; LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k eas gks tku s ij fnukad 31- 10- 2019 dk s vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vkn's k ds vuqlj.k eas LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds LFkku ij LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k dks i{kdkj ds :Ik eas la;ksftr fd;k x;kA 8- fnukad 15- 11- 2023 dk s izkFkhZ Jfed ekWxhyky cqudj dh eR` ;q gks tku s ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k us izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij fof/kd izfrfuf/k cuk;s tku s gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA ftls Lohdkj djr s gq;s rnqijkar izkFkhZ ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ks a dks vfHky[s k ij fy;s tku s dk vkn's k fnukad 03-01-2024 dks ikfjr fd;k x;kA rnquqlkj la'kksf/kr okn 'kh"kZd izLrqr fd;k x;kA 9- fnukad 30- 04- 2024 dk s eSau s mHk;i{k ds vfHkHkk"kdks a ds rdZ lqusA rRi'pkr 06 o 07- 05- 2024 dks nksuks a i{kks a us viu s rdZ ds leFkZu gsrq U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;As 10- izkFkhZ i{k dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ u s ;g fookn fnukad 10- 12- 1989 dks gqbZ lsok lekfIr ds Ik'pkr yxHkx 4&5 o"kZ es a gh izLrqr dj fn;k Fkk ftldk izek.k lk{; ds nkSjku izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA yfsdu leqfpr ljdkj }kjk fookn dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd; s tku s eas foyEc fd;k x;kA ftlds fy;s izkFkhZ mRrjnk;h ugh a gSA izkFkhZ u s foi{khx.k ls mifLFkfr vkSj osru Hkqxrku laca/kh vfHky[s k izLrqr djokus dk fuosnu fd;k Fkk fdarq foi{khx.k u s og vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;kA blfy;s foi{khx.k ds fo:} izfrdwy mi/kkj.kk dh tkosA izkFkhZ u s vkyksP; vof/k eas foi{kh cSad dh 'kk[kk eas dk;Zjr jgus ds laca/k eas lgdehZ txnh'k o fd'ku flag dks ijhf{kr fd;k gSA ftuds dFku fdlh izdkj [kaf.Mr ugh a gq;s gSA foi{khx.k ;g rks dgdj vk;s gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 31-10-1985 rd] S.M.S. gkbos 'kk[kk es a 20 fnu vkSj fnukad 15-06-1988 ls 07-12-1989 rd 130 fnu dk;Z fd;k fdarq bl x.kuk dk dksbZ vk/kkj mUgksua s izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ls dfu"B u;s Jfedks a dks fu;qDr fd;k tkuk Hkh foi{khx.k u s [kf.Mr ugha fd;k gSA blfy, lsokeqfDr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ eas 240 fnu dke dju s dk rF; izkFkhZ }kjk izekf.kr dj fn;k x;k gSA vr% mldk nkok Lohdkj fd;k tkosA 11- mUgksus viu s rdksZa ds leFkZu es a fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;sA3736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1- j?kqohj flag cuke tujy eSustj gfj;k.kk jksMost fglkj ¼2014½ 10 lqizhe dkVs Z dslst 301 2- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke ,l- lR;e o vU; II LLJ 1996 820 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 3- LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke jk.kkjke o vU; WLC ¼jkt-½ 2001 ¼5½ 148 4- eSustj eS- feRry LVhy esU;q- d-a cuke pkSFkkjke o vU; WLC ¼jkt-½ 2005 ¼3½ 430 5- jkeizlkn ekyh cuke jhtuy vkWQhlj ,- ,l- vkbZ- lokbZek/kksiqj 2017 ¼2½ WLC ¼jktLFkku½ UC 637 6- eS- Jhjke b.MLVªh;y ,UVjizkbZtst cuke egd flag o vU; AIR 2007 SCW 1712 7- vkj-,e- ;syFkh cuke vflLVUs V ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j AIR 2005 SCW 6103 ¼lqizhe dkVs Z½ 8- lfpo] lekt dY;k.k foHkkx cuke yknjw ke eh.kk 2020 ¼2½ WWLC ¼jkt-½ 459 9- xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ¼2015½ 12 lqizhe dksVZ dslts 754 10- thrHw kk [kku laxth tMstk cuke dPN fMLVªfjDV iapk;r 2022 ysVssLV dSl ykW 755 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 11- eus ts esaV vkWQ jhtuy phQ bathfu;j ih-,p-bZ-Mh- jkph cuke odZesu }kjk fMLVªfjDV lsdzsVjh 2018 ¼159½ FLR 1026 ¼lqizhe dkVs Z½ 12- tlejs flag cuke LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk ¼2015½ 4 lqizhe dksVZ dslts 458 13- gjftUnj flag cuke iatkc LVVs os;j gkmflax dksiZ- 2010 II- LLJ 277 ¼lqizhe dksVZ½ 12- foi{khx.k dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ dks u rks fu;qDr fd;k x;k vkSj u dksbZ fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;kA foi{kh ds v/khu pijklh dk in Lohd`r gh ugha gSA ekSf[kd :Ik ls lsok lekIr dj fn;s tku s ds fo:} izkFkhZ u s dksbZ izkFkZuk i= gh ugha fn;kA izkFkhZ dk s ;g izekf.kr djuk Fkk fd mlu s foi{khx.k ds v/khu ,d o"kZ es a 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z lsok lekfIr ds rqjar iwoZ fd;kA yfsdu og bl rF; dks izekf.kr ugh a dj ldk gSA fnukad 10-12-1989 ds mijkar o"kZ 1995 rd mlu s fdl mn~s'; ls foyEc fd;k bldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugh a gSA izkFkhZ u s lsokeqfDr ds Ik’pkr yxHkx 26 o"kZ ckn nLrkost izLrqr djokus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA foi{kh cSad ds fu;ekuqlkj 10 o"kZ dh vof/k rd Hkqxrku okmplZ vkfn lqjf{kr j[ks tkr s gSA mlds ckn mUgs a u"V dj fn;k tkrk gSA blfy, foi{kh }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh Jh 'kf'k Hkw"k.k tks'kh dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djrs gq;s bl rF; dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ks a eas foi{khx.k ds fo:} dksbZ izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA foi{kh lk{kh iadt xqIrk dk ijh{k.k lk{; eas] o"kZ 2023 eas gqvk gSA foi{khx.k u s le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k o"kZ 1995 es a gh tk s rF;kRed fooj.k dk;Z fnolks a ds laca/k eas izLrqr fd;k Fkk og miyC/k vfHky[s kks a ds vk/kkj ij FkkA mlh rF;kRed fooj.k ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh lk{kh us lk{; eas viu s dFku fd;sA blfy, ;g ugh a ekuk tk ldrk fd foi{khx.k u s fujk/kkj dFku fd;s gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fookn fdlh izdkj Lohdkj ugha gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosA mUgksua s viu s rdZ ds leFkZu es a fuEukafdr fu.kZ; izLrqr fd;As 1- jast QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh AIR 2002 lqizhe dksVZ 1147 2- ;w-ih- izkstsDV dkis Z- fy- y[kuÅ cuke ih-vks- yos j dksVZ I dkuiqj 2015 ¼144½ FLR 452 ¼bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky;½ 3- ;wdks cSad cuke ih-vk-s yos j dksVZ o vU; ¼fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;½ 2000 I LLJ 1187 4- vkbZ-Mh-ih-,y- fyfe- cuke odZeus vkbZ-Mh-ih-,y- fyfe- ¼2007½ I SCC 408 5- xaxk/kj fiYybZ cuke lhesUl fy- ¼2007½ 1 lqizhe dksVZ dslts 533 6- djuohj flag cuke mi izca/kd LVVs cSad vkWQ bf.M;k 2023 LLR 1222 7- jkexksiky lSuh cuke n tt yos j dksVZ ua- 2 t;iqj 2001 LLR 747 ¼jkt-½ 8- ds-,y- dqekj cuke oh-ih- ikfVy o vU; MANU/MH/ 0856@2007 ¼cksEc½s 9- ih- d:ibZ;k cuke tujy eSustj FkzwoYywoj VªkaliksVZ dksiZ- AIR 2017 SC 5681 10- n bathfu;j bu phQ okVj fjlksZlst fMikVZesVa Hkksiky cuke eugj.k 2016 LLR 1244 ¼e/; izn's k½3737 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 11- xksiky uan fd'kksj 'kekZ cuke eSuts j ukukoVh ,slksfl,Vs 2007 LLR 1164 ¼xqtjkr½ 12- ch-,l-,u-,y- cuke ekuflag ¼2012½ 1 SCC 558 13- lhfu;j lqizhVasUMsVa Vys hxzkQ ¼VªSfQd½ Hkksiky cuke larks"k dqqekj lhy o vU; ¼2010½ 6 lqizhe dksVZ dslts 773 14- ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j ih-MCY;w-Mh- cuke gjpanh o vU; 2016 LLR 261 13- mHk;i{k ds rdkZs ,oa vfHkopuks a ij euu ds mijkar bl fookn eas fuEukafdr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq;s gS%& 1- D;k izkFkhZ us mldh lsok lekfIr frfFk 10-12-01989 ds rqjar iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k es a foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k rFkk foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds izko/kkuks a dk vuqikyu u fd;s tkus ls ;g lsok lekfIr voS/k NaVuh gS\ -----------------izkFkhZ 2- D;k izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{kh }kjk ofj"Brk lwph ugh a cukbZ xbZ ,oa izkFkhZ ls dfu"B O;fDr;ks a dks lsok eas j[kr s gq;s izkFkhZ dks ojh;rk ugha nh xbZ\ ---------------izkFkhZ 3- D;k orZeku fookn izkFkhZ }kjk vR;f/kd foyEc ls izLrqr fd; s tku s ds dkj.k iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ ----------------foi{kh 4- vuqrks"k%& 14- mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr lk{;] rdZ ,oa U;kf;d n"`Vkarks a eas ikfjr fof/k ij fopkj ds mijkar fopkj.kh; fcUnqvks a ij fu.kZ; bl izdkj gS%& 15- 16- izkFkhZ ekWxhyky u s viu s lk{; ds nkSjku eq[; ijh{k.k eas ;g rks dgk gS fd mlu s fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12- 1989 rd yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gS fdarq izfrijh{kk eas og Lohdkj djrk gS fd mlu s lsokeqfDr frfFk 10-12-1989 ls ,d dys.Mj o"kZ iwoZ fujarj 240 fnu dk;Z dju s laca/kh dkbs Z vfHky[s k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ;|fi dgrk gS fd mls fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;k Fkk og i=koyh eas lyaXu gSA fdarq i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZ dks tkjh fd;k x;k dksbZ fu;qfDr i= miyC/k ugh gqvk gSA foi{kh dk ;g dFku gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok le;&le; ij vko';drk gksus ij nSfud osru Hkksxh vkdfLed Jfed ds :Ik eas fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12-1989 ds e/; yh xbZ Fkh fdarq ;g lsok;a s yxkrkj ugha yh xbZA 17- izkFkhZ us ;|fi mifLFkfr ,oa osru Hkqxrku vfHky[s k foi{k ls izLrqr djoku s gsrq vf/kdj.k ls vkns'k ikfjr djok;k Fkk fdarq foi{kh u s bu izy[s kks a dk s miyC/k u gksu s ds dkj.k izLrqr djus eas foo'rk O;Dr dh gSA foi{khx.k u s bu izy[s kks a dks bl vk/kkj ij miyC/k u gksuk dgk gS fd ;g vfHky[s k 35 o"kZ ckn ryc djok;s x;s gS] tcfd bu izy[s kks a dks 10 o"kZ dh vof/k ds ckn lqjf{kr ugha j[kk tkrk gSA 18- tgkW rd foi{khx.k ds fo:} vknfs'kr nLrkost izLrqr u djus ds dkj.k izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd; s tkus dk iz'u gS] bl vf/kdj.k ds lqfopkfjr vf/ker ls izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA bl fu"d"kZ dk vk/kkj ;g gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr frfFk 10-12-1989 ds yxHkx 25&26 o"kZ mijkar fnukad 06-04-2015 dk s izkFkhZ u s foi{khx.k ls mifLFkfr ,oa osru Hkqxrku laca/kh vfHkys[k izLrqr djokus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA vf/kdj.k }kjk ;g vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd foi{kh ;k rks bu izys[kkas dks izLrqr djs vU;Fkk izLrqr u dj ikus ds laca/k eas l{ke izkf/kdkjh dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djsA foi{kh dh vksj ls Jh 'kf'k Hkw"k.k tk's kh] eq[; izca/kd (HR) dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djr s gq;s ;g dgk x;k gS fd okafNr vfHky[s k miyC/k ugha gS D;ksfd lacaf/kr vof/k yxHkx 35 o"kZ iqjkuh gSA vkSj cSad }kjk ,sl s izy[s k tks 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkus gks] laHkky ds ugh a j[ks tkrAs rdZ ds fy;s ;g eku Hkh fy;k tkos fd izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukad 06-04- 2015 dk s gh izLrqr dj fn;k x;k rks Hkh lsok lekfIr frfFk ls x.kuk dju s ij ;g vof/k 25 o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkuh izdV gksrh gSA foi{kh ds vulq kj bl izy[s kks a dk s 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd rd la/kkfjr ugha fd;k tkrkA bl fLFkfr eas foi{khx.k ls ;g vis{kk djuk fd og 25 o"kZ ckn Hkh bu izy[s kks a dks lqjf{kr j[ksxs]a mfpr ugha gSA3738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 19- izkFkhZ us mls fnukad 10-12-1989 dk s lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds laca/k eas gsM vkfQl o tksuy vkWfQl eas fyf[kr :Ik eas f'kdk;r djuk dgk gSA yfsdu izkFkhZ }kjk ,sl s ifjokn dh dksbZ izfr lk{; eas izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA 20- tgkW rd foi{kh lk{kh }kjk fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12-1989 ds e/; vko';drk vuq:Ik izkFkhZ ls dk;Z djok;s tku s dk rF; gS bl laca/k eas foi{kh lk{kh iadt xqIrk u s viu s izfrijh{k.k es a ;g Li"V dgk gS fd izkFkhZ u s bl vof/k eas yxkrkj dk;Z ugha fd;kA mlu s 'kiFk i= rS;kj djr s gq;s tks fjdkMZ ns[kk] mlh vk/kkj ij ;g dFku fd;kA foi{khx.k dk ;g rdZ lkjoku izrhr gksrk gS fd mUgksus a le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ¼lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh; t;iqj½ dks le>kSrk orkZ ds nkSjku fnukad 19-09-1995 dks izn'kZ W-4 i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftleas izkFkhZ }kjk fd; s x;s dk;Z dh vof/k ogh of.kZr dh xbZ tk s foi{khx.k us oknksRrj eas o lk{kh iadt xqIrk u s viu s lk{; eas dh gSA blfy, ;g furkar laHko gS fd izn'kZ W-4 i= ds vk/kkj ij gh foi{khx.k u s vius vfHkopu vkSj lk{; ds nkSjku dFku fd; s gksAa 21- izkFkhZ us foi{khx.k ds v/khu yxkrkj dk;Z dju s ds laca/k eas 2 iwoZ deZpkfj;ks a txnh'k ,oa fd'ku flag dks ijhf{kr fd;k gSA lk{kh WW-2 txnh'k dk dFku gS fd fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 09-12-1989 rd izkFkhZ us dysDVªh 'kk[kk eas dk;Z fd;kA fdarq bu lk{kh u s ;g ugh a dgk gS fd izkFkhZ us bl vof/k es a dk;Z] yxkrkj fd;k gksA lk{kh Lohdkj djrk gS fd fu;qfDr vLFkkbZ Fkh vkSj mls osru Hkqxrku VsEijjs h okmplZ ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk FkkA ;g lk{kh bl lq>ko dk s vLohdkj djrk gS fd izkFkhZ u s lsokeqfDr frfFk ds iwoZ fdlh vkSj 'kk[kk eas Hkh dk;Z fd;k gksA tcfd izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh nksuks a gh Lohdkj djr s gS fd izkFkhZ u s 20 fnu S.M.S. gkbos 'kk[kk es a Hkh bl vof/k ds nkSjku dk;Z fd;k FkkA 22- izkFkhZ dk lk{kh WW-3 fd'ku flag dgrk gS fd ekWxhyky dks] tc vknfe;ks a dh deh gksrh Fkh rks vko';drk vuqlkj nwljh 'kk[kkvks a eas Hkh Hkstk tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dk s Hkqxrku igys okmplZ ls rFkk ckn eas csda j pSd ds ek/;e ls gqvk FkkA ;fn csda j pSd ls izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku gqvk gksrk rks ml Hkqxrku dh izfof"V izkFkhZ ds cSad [kkr s eas Hkh gks ldrh Fkh] fdarq izkFkhZ us cSad [kkr s ds LVsVesVa @iklcqd dh izfr lk{; eas izLrqr gh ugh a dh gS] u gh csda j pSd dh dkbs Z izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 23- bl fLFkfr es a izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr bu lk{khx.k ds dFkuks a esa izkFkhZ ds vU; 'kk[kk eas dk;Z djus vkSj Hkqxrku dh jhfr ds laca/k eas fojks/kkHkklh dFku lkeus vk;s gSA izkFkhZ u s lsokeqfDr ls iwoZorhZ ,d o"kZ dh vof/k eas 240 fnu lsok dju s ds laca/k eas dksbZ izys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA foi{kh us okafNr izy[s kks a dk s izLrqr u dju s dk tks Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr fd;k gS ;g rdZlaxr vkSj vkSfpR;iw.kZ izrhr gksrk gSA lsok lekfIr ds mijkar 25 o"kZ O;rhr gks tkus ij ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfed dh mifLFkfr vkSj osru ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k lqjf{kr j[ku s dh vis{kk foi{kh ls fd;k tkuk fdlh izdkj U;k;ksfpr ugh a gSA foi{kh }kjk izn'kZ W-4 i= fnukad 19-09-1995 tks le>kSrk orkZ ds nkSjku izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds dk;Z fnolks a dh x.kuk djuk dgk gSA ;g i= lsokeqfDr ds yxHkx 5 o"kZ mijkar gh izLrqr gqvk Fkk rc rd lacaf/kr vfHky[s k u"V ugha fd;k x;k FkkA blfy, foi{kh }kjk fy;k x;k x.kuk dk vk/kkj vkSfpR;iw.kZ gSA 24- izkFkhZ u s vius leFkZu eas ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke jk.kkjke o vU;] eSustj eS- feRry LVhy eUs ;q- da- cuke pkSFkkjke o vU;] jkeizlkn ekyh cuke jhtuy vkWQhlj ,-,l-vkbZ- lokbZek/kksiqj rFkk lfpo] lekt dY;k.k foHkkx cuke yknwjke eh.kk rFkk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; eS- Jhjke b.MLVªh;y ,UVjizkbZtst cuke egd flag o vU;] vkj-,e- ;syFkh cuke vflLVUs V ,XthD;wfVo bathfu;j rFkk xkSjh 'kadj cuke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku izLrqr fd; s gSA bu fu.kZ;ks a eas izfrikfnr fof/k lkj:Ik es a ;gh gS fd lsok lekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ es a 240 fnu dk;Z djus ds rF; dk fl}hHkkj ;}fi deZdkj ij gS] fdarq tc og fu;kstd ls lacaf/kr vfHky[s k izLrqr djoku s dk vkxzg djs vkSj fu;kstd okafNr vfHkys[k izLrqr u dju s dk dkbs Z lUrqf"Vizn Li"Vhdj.k u n s rks ,slh fLFkfr eas fu;kstd ds fo:} izfrdwy mi/kkj.k fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA 25- foi{khx.k us bl laca/k eas ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; jast QksjsLV vkWQhlj cuke ,l- Vh- gknheuh] bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ;w-ih- izkstsDV dksiZ- fy- y[kuÅ cuke ih-vks- yos j dksVZ I dkuiqj rFkk fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ;wdks cSad cuke ih-vks- yos j dksVZ o vU; izLrqr fd; s gSA bu fu.kZ;ks a eas ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd fu;kstd ds v/khu 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z dju s ds laca/k eas deZdkj dks lUrq"Vhizn lk{; izLrqr djuh gksxh] ek= 'kiFk i= izLrqr djuk i;kZIr ugha gSA 26- bu fu.kZ;ks a eas ikfjr fof/k ds izdk'k eas bl fu"d"kZ dks iqf"V feyrh gS fd izkFkhZ viuh lk{; ls lsokeqfDr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ es a 240 fnu lsok iw.kZ dju s dk rF; izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gSA foi{kh u s ;|fi vknsf'kr izys[kks a dks izLrqr ugha fd;k gS fdarq mlu s tks Li"Vhdj.k bl laca/k eas fn;k gS og vkSfpR;iw.kZ gSA lk{; ds bl foospu ds mijkar pwfda izkFkhZ foi{kh ds v/khu iwoZorhZ ,d dys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k eas 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk izekf.kr ugha dj3739 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ik;k gS blfy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F ds varxZr uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru ,oa NaVuh izfrdj dk Hkqxrku foi{kh }kjk fd; s tku s dk dkbs Z volj gh mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA blfy;s ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 27- 28- izkFkhZ ekWxhyky u s bl fcUnq ds laca/k eas ;g dgk gS fd mldh lsokeqfDr ds ckn Hkh foi{kh }kjk mlh in ij u;h fu;qfDr;kW Hkh dh xbZ gSA ftu ij cuokjh yky 'kekZ] Hkwjkey 'kekZ] mes'k dqekor vkSj Vds pan ukbZ ds uke of.kZr fd; s x;s gSA fdarq izkFkhZ dks izkFkfedrk ugha nh xbZ gSA bl laca/k eas ;g mYy[s kuh; gS fd bu pkjks a O;fDr;ks a ds ukeksa dk o.kZu ftUgs a dfFkr :Ik ls izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds mijkar foi{kh }kjk uofu;qDr fd;k x;k] izkFkhZ u s vius nkos ds vfHkdFku eas ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk bu O;fDr;ks a ds laca/k eas tkjh fd;k x;k dkbs Z fu;qfDr vkns'k ;k Hkqxrku laca/kh vfHkys[k Hkh lk{; eas izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] u gh foi{kh ls ,slk vfHkys[k izLrqr djoku s gsrq dkbs Z fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA mYys[kuh; ;g Hkh gS fd izkFkhZ ds lk{kh txnh'k o fd'ku flag u s bu uofu;qDr O;fDr;ks a ds laca/k eas dqN ugh a dgk gSA tcfd izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj bu O;fDr;ks a dh fu;qfDr dysDVªh 'kk[kk eas gh dh xbZ FkhA vkSj ;g nksuks a lk{kh izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr vkSj mlds Ik'pkr dysDVªh 'kk[kk eas gh dk;Zjr FksA izkFkhZ us bl laca/k eas ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke ,l- lR;e o vU;] thrHw kk [kku laxth tMstk cuke dPN fMLVªfjDV iapk;r eas ikfjr fof/k dk voyEc fy;k gSA fdarq bu fu.kZ;ks a eas ikfjr dh xbZ fof/k izkFkhZ ds i{k eas blfy, lgk;d ugha gS D;ksfd izkFkhZ }kjk crk;s x;s pkj O;fDr;ks a dh fu;qfDr lsokefqDr ds mijkar foi{kh }kjk fd;k tkuk gh izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA 29- foi{kh }kjk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; jkexksiky lSuh cuke n tt yos j dksVZ ua- 2 t;iqj bl laca/k eas izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa ;g dgk x;k gS fd dedZ kj dks ;g izekf.kr djuk gS fd izca/ku us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 H vkSj G ds izko/kkuks a dh ikyuk ugha dhA ek= dfu"B O;fDr;ks a ds uke vafdr djuk bl mn~s'; dh iwfrZ ugha djrkA 30- ekuuh; cksEc s mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ds-,y- dqekj cuke oh-ih- ikfVy o vU; eas ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k x;k gS fd ewyHkwr vfHkopu ds vHkko es a lk{; xzg.k fd; s tku s ;ksX; ugh a gSA ;|fir vfHkopuks a ds fu;e dBkSjrk ls ykxw ugha gksrsA 31- izkFkhZ ,d nSfud osru Hkksxh vkdfLed Jfed gksuk izekf.kr gqvk gS ftls fnukad 16-07-1985 ls 10-12-1989 ds e/; le;&le; ij vko';drk gksus ij foi{khx.k }kjk dke ij j[kk x;kA blfy, ;g Li"V gS fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fofgr p;u izfdz;k ds vuq:Ik LFkkbZ fjDr in ds fy;s ugh a dh xbZ FkhA vr% ofj"Brk lwph dk la/kkj.k ,oa Þckn eas vkvks igy s tkvksÞ ds fu;e dk vuqlj.k u rks visf{kr gS] u gh vko’;dA vr% ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 32- 33- bl laca/k eas foi{kh }kjk izLrqr ;g rdZ fd izkFkhZ us lsokeqfDr ds 35 o"kZ ckn ;g fookn izLrqr fd;k gS] tks vR;f/kd foyfEcr gSA ;g rdZ miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij Lohdk;Z ugha gSA izn'kZ W-1] lgk;d Je vk;qDr ds i= ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 27-01-1994 dk s gh ifjokn izLrqr dj fn;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 13-11-1995 dk s foQyrk izfrosnu tkjh gks pqdk Fkk fdarq leqfpr ljdkj }kjk fookn dk s U;k; fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr ugh a fd;k x;kA rnqijkar izkFkhZ ds iz;klks a ds dkj.k fnukad 16-10-2012 dks ;g fookn lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk dkfjr foyca 4&5 o"kZ dk gh gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s viu s fu.kZ; j?kqohj flag cuke tujy eSustj gfj;k.kk jksMost fglkj eas ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd deZdkj dks foyac ls fookn izLrqr dju s ds vk/kkj ij vuqrks"k ls badkj ugh a fd;k tk ldrkA bl fof/k ds izdk'k eas izkFkhZ }kjk dkfjr 4 o"kZ ls vf/kd ds foyca ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds fookn dk U;k; fu.kZ;u fd; s tku s ls badkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k iw.kZ ugha gSA vr% ;g fcUnq foi{khx.k ds fo:} fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 34- 35- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 o 2 ikzFkhZ ds fo:} fu.khZr fd; s x;s gSA izkFkhZ dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 F, G vkSj H dk dksbZ laj{k.k n;s ugha ik;k x;k gS] vkSj izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 36- Je e=a ky; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lanfHkZr fookn dks blh izdkj U;k; fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 37- vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi leqfpr ljdkj dks vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds varxZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkosAa jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh3740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1666.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार सीजीएम (एचआर),एनटीपीसी णलणमटेड, नोएडा, उत्तर प्रिेश; जपे ीजी इंजीणनयर,द्वारा-श्री झलू न प्रसाि गप्तु ा (माणलक),नागं लोई,नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री प्रकाश पणं डत एि ं 05 अन्द्य, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 84 of 2023) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42012/05/2023-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84 of 2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The CGM (HR), NTPC Ltd., Noida, Uttar Pradesh ;JPG Engineer, Through- Shri Jhoolan Prasad Gupta (Proprietor), Nangloi, New Delhi, and, Shri Prakash Pandit & 05 others, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42012/05/2023-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 84/2023 Sh. Prakash Pandit & 05 others, C-419, Block-C, New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi-110096. Versus 1. The CGM (HR), NTPC Ltd., NTPC Engineering Office Complex, Plot No. A-08-A, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301. 2. JPG Engineer, Through- Sh. Jhoolan Prasad Gupta (Proprietor) E-03/240, Shani Bazar Road, Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi, New Delhi-110041. AWARD The appropriate government, Sh. D.K. Himanshu, under Secretary had sent reference referred dated 15.05.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words. “1. Whether the claim of Sh. Prakash Pandit & 05 others (list enclosed) through Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress Zila Council, Noida that they were illegally terminated by the management of M/s. JPG Engineers in the establishment of NTPC at PMI, Noida is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs are the disputant workers entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?3741 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Whether claim of Sh. Prakash Pandit & 05 others for payment of their alleged legal dues on account of full and final settlement to be done from management of M/s. JPG Engineers in respect of work done by them in the establishment of NTPC at PMI, Noida along with appropriate compensation is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs are the disputant workers entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?” Notices were issued to both the parties. AR for the management-1 & 2 have been appearing before this tribunal. They have not come forward to file their claim statement before this tribunal, despite, providing a number of opportunities. In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims, it appears that they are not interested to pursue their case. This tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant award. No dispute award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room. ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer Date 06th, August, 2024 नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1667.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार प्रबिं णनिेशक, बी.जी. णशके कंस्रक्शन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइिटे णलणमटेड, मिुं िा, पिु ;े श्री राम एंटरप्राइजजे , नरेला औद्योणगक क्षत्रे , दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री महशे कुमार सनै ी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 116 of 2022) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-148-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 116 of 2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Managing Director, B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Mundhwa, Pune ; Shree Ram Enterprises, Narela Industrial Area, Delhi, and, Shri Mahesh Kumar Saini, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-148-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI ID No.-116/2022 Sh. Mahesh Kumar Saini, S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Saini, R/o House No.-383, Jain Nagar, Karala Road, Rohini, Sector-22, New Delhi-110085. VERSUS 1. The Managing Director, B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Civil Division, 72-76, Industrial Estate, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. 2. Shree Ram Enterprises, Flats DDA, Plot No. G-09,3742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] No. 1333, Narela Industrial Area, Delhi-110040. Appearance: For Claimant: Sh. Prashant Singh. For Management: Ms. Priya Jha for the management-1. AWARD Record perused. Workman wants to withdraw the present claims, due to the technical error. Their statement recorded separately. In view of the external records, claim of the claimant dismissed as withdrawn. They are at liberty to file the same to the appropriate forum. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to record room. A copy of this award is hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947. Dated: 15.07.2024 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1668.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार बी.जी. णशके कंस्रक्शन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइिटे णलणमटेड, नहे रू प्लसे , नई दिल्ली; श्री राम एंटरप्राइजजे , नरेला, नई दिल्ली- द्वारा - हहिं स्ु तान इंजीणनयररंग एि ं जनरल मजिरू यणू नयन, सल्ु तानपरु ी, दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री मनोज कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 158 of 2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-149-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 158 of 2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi; Shree Ram Enterprises, Narela, New Delhi-Through- Hindustan ngineering & General Mazdoor Union, Sultanpuri, Delhi, and, Shri Manoj Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-149-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOV. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO II, NEW DELHI ID No. 158/2021 Sh. Manoj Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pal Singh, R/o E-115, Rajeev Nagar, Begumpur North West, Delhi-110086. VERSUS 1. B.G Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., H.O. 1308, Hemkund Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. 2. Shree Ram Enterprises, Sector-G-7, G-8, DDA Project, Near Mansa Devi Mandir, Narela, New Delhi-110040. Through- Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union,3743 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Head Office: D-2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086 Appearance: For Claimant: Sh. Kailash Kumar Jonwal. For Management: Ms. Priya Jha for the management-1. AWARD Record perused. Workman counsel wants to withdraw the present claims, due to the technical error. Their statement recorded separately. In view of the external records, claim of the claimant dismissed as withdrawn. They are at liberty to file the same to the appropriate forum. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to record room. A copy of this award is hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947. Dated: 15.07.2024 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1669.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार 226 कंपनी एएससी (सपु ), दिल्ली कैंट, नई दिल्ली; राम हसहं कादियान सरु क्षा एजसें ी, दिल्ली कैंट, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और आई.डी. सख्ं या 154/2019, श्री राजशे , आई.डी. सख्ं या 155/2019, श्री सजं ीत कुमार, आई.डी. सख्ं या 156/2019, श्री मो. अशरफ,द्वारा- इंडणस्रयल िकिस ि यणू नयन, पालम कॉलोनी, नई दिल्ली, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(सिं भ ि सख्ं या 154 of 2019,155 OF 2019, & 156 OF 2019) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-150-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 154 of 2019,155 OF 2019, & 156 OF 2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to 226 Coy ASC (Sup), Delhi Cantt., New Delhi ;Ram Singh Kadiyan Security Agency, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, and, I.D. No. 154/2019,Shri Rajesh, I.D. No. 155/2019,Shri Sanjeet Kumar, I.D. No. 156/2019,Shri Md. Ashraf, Through- Industrial Workers Union, Palam Colony, New Delhi, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-150-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 154/2019 Sh. Rajesh, S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o- K-5/95, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. I.D. No. 155/2019 Sh. Sanjeet Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Pratap Mehto, R/o- Chiaiya, Thana-Sahiyana, District-Sitamani, Bihar-845415. I.D. No. 156/20193744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Md. Ashraf, S/o Rasheed Ahmad, R/o-324, Dhampur, Pipalsana, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh-246761. Through- Industrial Workers Union, F-328, Gali No. 22, Sadhnagar-II, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045. Versus 1. 226 Coy ASC (Sup), Prakesh-G, Type-G, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010. 2. Ram Singh Kadiyan Security Agency. Prakesh-G, Type-G, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010, Counsels: For Claimant: None For Respondent: Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, Ld. AR. AWARD By this composite order, I shall dispose of these three applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. Claims of the workmen are that they have been serving the management-1 through management-2. Name and particular of their employment are given below- List of Workmen Sr. Name Father’s Post Dates of Dates of Last Drawn No. Joining Termination Salary Name 1 Ashraf Rasheed Ahmed Barber 02.08.2012 15.11.2017 Rs. 11,500/- 2 Rajesh Om Prakash Washerman 02.07.2008 15.11.2017 Rs. 11,500/- 3 Sanjeet Nand Kr. Cook 01.06.1996 15.11.2017 Rs. 11,500/- Kumar Shrivastava They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records are clean and they have not given any complaint so far. During the services, management had not provided any legal facilities i.e. Pay Slip, Leave Book, bonus, overtime salary, weekly and events holidays etc. Management got annoyed with the demands raised by the claimants had thrown them out from the service of the management on 15.11.2017. They had sent the demand notice to the management on 27.11.2017 through speed post to take back their services but management never replied. They had sent the complaint to the labor commissioner, but, it has resulted into failure. Hence, they have filed the present claims. W.S has been filed by the respondent-1. Management-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2021. Management-1 had denied the averment made in the claims. He had submitted that their claims are liable to be dismissed. After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 15.09.2021 i.e.- 1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable. 2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the management-1 and the claimant. 3. Whether the claimant was appointed in the premises of Management-1 by the Security Agency respondent-2. 4. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management-1. 5. To what relief the claimant is entitled to.3745 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Now, the matters are listed for workman evidence. On behalf of management-1, Sh. Atul Bhardwaaj appeared. Claimants have not brought any evidence i.e documents and oral to substantiate their claims, inspite of providing a number of opportunities. In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims, it appears that they are not interested to pursue their cases. Their claims stand dismissed. Awards are passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room. Date- 22.07.2024 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1670.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार कुलपणत, जाणमया णमणलया इस्लाणमया णिश्वणिद्यालय,जाणमया नगर, ओखला, नई दिल्ली; शमा ि एंटरप्राइजजे ,निािा,नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और आई.डी. सख्ं या 124/2023,श्री प्रमे पाल, आई.डी. सख्ं या 122/2023,श्री इणततयाज, द्वारा-अणखल भारतीय आम मजिरू रेड यूणनयन,कालकाजी, नई दिल्ली, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(सिं भ ि सख्ं या 124 & 122 OF 2023) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-151-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124 & 122 OF 2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla,New Delhi; Sharma Enterprises, Nawada, New Delhi, and, I.D. No. 124/2023, Shri Prem Pal, I.D. No. 122/2023, Shri Imtiyaz, Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, Kalkaji, New Delhi, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-151-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 124/2023 Sh. Prem Pal, S/o Late Sh. Suranjan, Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. I.D. No. 122/2023 Sh. Imtiyaz, S/o Sh. Muslim, Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Versus 1. The Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025. 2. Sharma Enterprises,3746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 92-B, Plot No-01, Ground Floor, Nawada, Nawada Metro Station, New Delhi-110059. AWARD The appropriate government, Sh. D.K. Himanshu, under Secretary had sent two references referred dated 04.07.2023 to this tribunal for adjudication with the following words. “Whether claims of Sh. Imtiyaz, S/o Sh. Muslim and Sh. Prem Pal, S/o Sh. Suranjan through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.10.2021 against the management of M/s Sharma Enterprises, New Delhi (Contractor) under Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi that their services were terminated w.e.f. 05.11.2020 and 01.09.2020 without notice, without reason and without due payment which is violation of Section 33 and 25 F of the I.D Act, 1947 as their common demand through Union is pending in CGIT cum LC, No.-2, New Delhi bearing ID No. 155/2020, is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what reliefs as sought vide letter dated 11.10.2021 are the disputant worker entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?” Notices were issued to both the parties. AR for the management-1 & 2 have been appearing before this tribunal. Both claimants have not been appearing since long. They have not come forward to file their claim statements before this tribunal, despite, providing a number of opportunities. In these circumstances, when the workmen are not interested in pursuing their claim. This tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant award. Hence, no disputant award is passed. Awards are passed accordingly Files are consigned to the record room. Copies of these awards are hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947. Date 31st, July, 2024 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1671.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार महाणनिेशक, भारतीय परु ातत्ि सिक्षे ि, णतलकमाग,ि नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री सोमप्रकाश भारद्वाज (एस.पी भारद्वाज), कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 44 of 2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-152-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44 of 2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Tilakmarg, New Delhi, and, Shri Som Prakash Bhardwaj (S.P Bhardwaj), Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-152-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 44/2018 Sh. SomPrakashBhardwaj (S.P Bhardwaj), S/o Sh. Hari Chand, R/o A-81, Village-Nathupura,3747 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Burrari, North Delhi, Delhi-110084. Versus 1. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, 2. Tilakmarg, New Delhi-110001. AWARD Dated:29.07.2024 1. Claimant has filed the claim U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after refered as an Act). Workman has been claiming to have been working as Monument Attendant (ex-Serviceman) on contractual basis with the office of the Delhi Circle, Safdarganj Tomb since 15.03.2012 at the last drawn salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. His services has been terminated by the management without assigned any reason on 30.06.2017. His fault is only that he had orally requested the management to regularize him as his permanent employee keeping in consideration of the tenure and quality of his services rendered by him. He had sent the demand notice letter through his counsel to the management for regularisation, reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of the services. However, management did not give any reply. He was finally constrained to approach the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer, but the management did not settle the dispute with the claimant. Hence, he had filed the present claim petition. 2. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent. Respondent appeared and filed the W.S. Management had taken several preliminary objection inter-alia that Archaeological Survey of India is neither an industry nor industrial establishment undertaking so as to attract the provisions of I.D Act; Archaeological Survey of India is discharging its duties for the preservation and conversation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites which are declared to be of national importance; Archaeological Survey of India has not violated any provision of the I.D Act and every action is within the ambit of law; reference is bad in law, without application of mind. 3. On merit respondent had admitted that Sh. S.P Bhardwaj was engaged as a Monument Attendant since 15.03.2012 purely on contract basis for watch and ward of the monument protection, cleaning/sweeping of the premises area of the monument, reporting of unauthorized construction around the monument and others duties assigned by the sub-circle in-charge. Initially his period was purely on contract basis for one year and extendable on satisfactory performance assessed by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). However, the contract might be terminated by any time, on giving one month notice. His contract was expired on 30.06.2017 and his services were discontinued. However, he had denied that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has been indulging in unfair labour practices and violated the industrial/labour law. He submits that the claim be dismissed. Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant affirming the averment, what has been stated by him in his claim statement and denied the averment made by the respondent in the WS. 4. After completion of the pleadings following issues have been framed vide order dated 06.02.2019 that is – 1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable and the alleged dispute is an Industrial Dispute. 2. Whether there exists any employer and employee relationship between the respondent & workman. 3. Whether the service of the workman has been illegally terminated by the respondent. 4. Whether the respondent is liable for adopting unfair labour practice. 5. Whether the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages. 6. To what other relief the parties are entitled to. 5. In order to prove his case, workman had appeared in the witness box. He had filed the affidavit in support of his claim. He has reiterated the averment made by him in the claim statement. In rebuttal, management has examined one witness Ms. Kamlesh Devi. He has also reiterated the stand taken by the respondent in his WS. He had relied upon three document i.eMW1/1, MW1/2 and MW1/3. 6. Counsel of the claimant had argued since the management witness had admitted in the cross-examination that he has been continuously working from 15.03.2012 to 30.06.2017; his services records are clean therefore, he had proved that he had worked more than 240 days in a year. Even no notice of termination/discontinuation to the engagement was ever given. This fact is also admitted by the respondent witness herein. Therefore the management has violated the section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act. Even the witness had admitted that benefit of PF and ESI was not extended to the claimant by the management during the course of his engagement. He has further submitted that the management witness has not placed any document to show that the post against which the claimant was working were filled up through SSC before the dis-engagement of the claimant.3748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7. Per-contra respondent counsel had advanced the argument stating that the engagement of the workman is purely contractual. On expiry of the contract, his services were discontinued. He submits that discontinuation of the service does not come within the definition of retrenchment, therefore there is no question arises for the illegal termination of the respondent. He submits that the claimant himself admitted in the cross-examination that he does not know whether the Archaeological Survey of India is an industry? Even he had submitted that if assumed not admitted that his termination was illegal then also the workman stated that he was getting pension of Rs. 21000/- per month from the service rendered by him in Indian Army. 8. In the light of the above evidence and argument advanced by the respective AR of the party in advance, my issue wise finding are as follows. Issue no. 1 & 2 have been taken together at the same has been bearing upon each other. 9. At the outset, it is important to mention here that the respondent has taken the plea that the proceeding is not maintainable because the alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute because Archaeological Survey of India is discharging his sovereign function. However, keeping the monumental faith and employing the contractual employee for guarding their sites does not come within the purview of sovereign function. If the plea of the management is taken as true then every government function would be exempted from the purview of Industrial Law. Job profile of the workman as mentioned in the contractual employment Ex. WW1/M1 was to protect and cleaning/sweeping of the premises and surrounding of the monument. It is the common knowledge that people use to come to visit the monument for seeing the monument and there is no evidence led by the management contrary to the fact that no one is allowed to visit the above said sites. It is further the common knowledge that visitors visiting the site used to pay the fee. Therefore the management even though, being the government functionaries has come within the definition of an industry if we applied the tripple test. Admittedly the workman was employed by the management on contractual basis from 15.03.2012 initially for one year and his terms have been extended several times, so, the relationship of the employee and employer has been established beyond doubt. Therefore, these two issues have gone in favour of the workman and against the management. Issue no.-3 & 4 have been taken together as the same are bearing upon each other. Workman had claimed to have worked with the management from 15.03.2012 to 30.06.2017 on contract basis. 10. Before parting the decision on this issues, text of Section 2 (oo) and 25F of the Act are required to be produced herein: Section 2 [(oo)] “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or [(bb)] termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health; section 25F- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Definition of retrenchment has been couched in a comprehensive manner. It covers every type of termination of the service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. The case of voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on reaching the age of superannuation, termination of service as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment or of such contract3749 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] being terminated under a stipulation contained therein or termination of the service of the workman on the ground of continued ill health by condition doesn’t fall within the ambit of retrenchment. 11. Management has further taken the plea that the workman service is purely on contract basis, it was stipulated in the initial contract and subsequent contract which were extended from time to time that his services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. It has taken the pleas of exception as prescribed in Section 2 (oo) i.e. non renewal of the contract. However, the plea raised by the management in his WS is not tenable because of the fact that the contract had renewed from time to time and has been continued from 15.03.2012 to 30.06.2017. Section 2 (oo) of the Act which defines the definition of retrenchment and contract of employment which has been excluded within the definition of retrenchment shall be for a specific period and for specific purpose. But, admittedly the workman job is in perennial and regular in nature as contract had been extended from time to time. Management witness has also admitted that the workman had worked with them till 30.06.2017. His contention is that his contract was not renewed because, there was a direction from the Head Quarter not to extend his engagement. She also admitted that the claimant during the course of engagement was discharging his duty with sincerity and to the satisfaction of the authority. Management witness has admitted that all such post already were filled through Staff Selection Commission (SSC), even the PF and ESI were not extended 12. Extending of the contract from time to time as reflected from the document produced by the workman and the management clearly established that there is a unfair labour practice adopted by the management. Job of the workman was perennial in nature i.e. cleaning the monuments of the management at different places. No record has been produced by the management that all the posts in which the workman was working has been filled through SSC. Even, for the sake of assumption, if it is assumed that the posts were filled up by SSC then also management cannot escape from its liability under Industrial Disputes Act. Once it is established that there is an employer-employee relationship between the workman and the management, and the management entering into the contract is not for any specific purpose for specific period then it is assumed that the nature of the work is perennial nature and it has not come within the exception created by the Section 2 (oo) which defines retrenchment. Once the workman has been retrenched from service then prior to retrenchment, management has to follow the principles set out in Section 25 of the Act. Section 25F couched in a negative form, imposed a restriction on employer try to retrench the workman and laid down that no workman employed in an industry who has been in a continuous employment for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched until he has been given one month notice in writing indicating the reason for retrenchment and the period of notice has been expired or the workman had been paid for the period of notice or he had been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen day average pay for every completed year of continuous service or part thereof. Here, admittedly respondent has not done anything. 13. In view of the above discussion the termination of the workman is held illegal in violation of the principle of Section 25F. Relief Generally, when the termination is held illegal then naturally reinstatement with full back wages would follow. However, in the present case, workman is a retired army personnel at the time of his deposition, he was 51 year of age now, he is almost 59 year of age, therefore reinstatement cannot be given to him being inappropriate relief in view of the illegal termination of the workman. Therefore, lump sum compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lac Fifty Thousand only) is an appropriate relief. Award is passed accordingly. Management is directed to pay the above said compensation within four weeks. ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1672.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार णनिेशक स्थापना, णित्त मत्रं ालय, डीएफएस, नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री णगरीश चिं , कामगार, द्वारा -अध्यक्ष, राष्ट्रीय जनरल मजिरू यणू नयन, तीस हजारी, दिल्ली , के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 217 of 2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ैजो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-153-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि3750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 217 of 2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director Establishment, Ministry of Finance, DFS, New Delhi, and, Shri Girish Chand, Worker, Through- The President, Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union, Tis Hazari, Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-153-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 217/2021 Sh. Girish Chand, S/o Late Sh. Kamal Singh, Through- The President Ms. Nitika Bhola, Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union, B-40, 1st Floor, Boulaward Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054. Versus The Director Establishment, Ministry of Finance, DFS, New Delhi-110001. Counsels: For Claimant: Armaan Bhola, Ld. AR. For Respondent: Sh. B.C Bhatt, Ld. AR. AWARD The present claim has been filed U/s 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act (herein after refered as an Act). In the entire claim, claimant has not stated anything about his employment with the respondent. Entire crux of the case of the workman is that his father was a regular and permanent employee of the management and he was working at the post of MTS (Multi Tasking Staff). He has unblemished and uninterrupted record. His father was expired on 07.09.2013 leaving behind his family member in harness. He has applied for job on compassionate ground, but not given. Nowhere, he has stated that he has ever been given a job temporarily or regular. Section 2A of the ID Act in which the application has been filed deals with the termination. Before we proceed further, text of the Section 2A is required to be reproduced which are given under: [2A. Dismissal, etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute [(1)] Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.] [(2)] Notwithstanding anything contained in section 10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government.3751 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified in sub-section (1)]. Ld. AR for the workman Sh. Armaan Bhola has no answer about the fact, how his application U/s 2A of I.D Act is maintainable. Section 2A has been inserted in the I.D Act in 1965. It gives the individual workman the right to approach the industrial tribunal/labour court directly in case of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment without sponsoring his case by any union. However, the right is not an absolute. It is conditional that first respondent has to approach the conciliation officer for conciliation and, if the conciliaton does not have yielded any result within 45 days. Secondly, this right has to be exercised within three years of dismissal, termination, and discharge. But, the fact of the claim does not reveal that workman has ever got any job on compassionate ground, therefore, there is no question arises of his termination, discharge or dismissal. In view of the facts mentioned above, claim filed by the claimant deserves dismissal being not maintainable. Hence, claim is dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room. Date- 23.07.2024 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1673.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार काहलिं ी कॉलजे नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री णिजय पाल, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 185 of 2018) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-154-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 185 of 2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Kalindi College New Delhi, and, Shri Vijay Pal, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-154-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI ID No. 185/2018 Sh. Vijay Vs. Kalindi College Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: Sh. Vijay Pal, Ld. AR. For Management/ Respondent: None for the management. AWARD 1. A very short question arises in the present claim filed by the claimant U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; whether the services of the workman was terminated due to the efflux of time.3752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Claimant in his claim petition asserted that he is a law abiding and peace loving citizen of India and he worked with the management at the post of SafaiKaramchari/M.T.S. since 18.10.2010 and management had issued the appointment letter bearing no. KC/PF/22753 as SafaiKaramchari at the basic salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month. He was not provided minimum wages, casual and yearly leave, wages on register etc. Management again executed an agreement for the period of six month only and thereafter renewal had been done from time to time. His last drawn salary was 15,070/- per month. On 31.03.2017, the management suddenly stated that there is no need for his service anymore and he was asked to deposit his clearance letter stating that he had taken all his dues as full and final. His service had been terminated without giving any reason and was illegal. He was suffering from 80% disability. He had filed his claim before the Deputy Chief Commissioner, Central District, Jeevan Deep Building, 4th Floor, SansadMarg, New Delhi. No conciliation took place and the concerned officer had issued the failure report on 13.09.2018; hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages. 3. Written statement had been filed by the respondent where he admitted that the claimant was appointed vide letter no. KC/PF/22753 dated 18.10.2010 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 7,500/- per month. He had also admitted that contract of the claimant was renewed by the respondent from time to time, till around January 2016. Contractual appointment of the claimant including the rules relating leaves, remuneration etc. was governed by the University of Delhi and UGC rules and regulations. He had taken the plea that behavior of the claimant started deteriorating day by day and he started to become negligent towards his duties. Staff members of the college requested the claimant to be more careful in his work but the claimant paid no heed to the said requests. Even the behavior of the claimant became worse that led to a level where the claimant would just come to the college and used to spend entire day idly without doing any work. A warning letter was issued to the claimant dated 26.11.2016 against acknowledgement and the claimant was given the final opportunity to mend his ways. On 27.12.2016, a general notice was issued by the respondent college, wherein it was specifically informed to all the contractual staff that their renewal would depend only on the basis of satisfactory performance. The tenure of claimant was again extended for a period of one month from 01.03.2027 to 31.03.2017. As such, the respondent submits that contract had been expired with an efflux of time. 4. Rejoinder had been filed by the claimant where he denied the averment made by the respondent in his written statement and affirmed the averment made by him in the claim statement. 5. After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 12.03.2019, following issues had been framed: 1. If the proceeding is maintainable and the claimant is a ‘workman’ under the definition of Law. 2. Whether the termination of service of the workman by the respondent is illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice. 3. To what relief the workman is entitled to. 6. In support of his claim, workman had examined himself and he had filed the affidavit affirming the averment made in the claim statement. He has relied upon five documents i.e. termination order (Ex. WW1/1), appointment letter (Ex. WW1/2), copy of the attendance sheet issued by the management (Ex. WW1/3), copy of the identity card issued by the management (Ex. WW1/4), copy of the disability certificate (Ex. WW1/5). Witness was cross-examined at length; however, nothing substantial had been extracted from the mouth of the witness. His testimony almost has gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontroverted to the fact that he was appointed and was terminated on such dates respectively. 7. Nothing has been brought by the management to contest his plea regarding claimant’s behavior. Management has not led any evidence despite providing a number of opportunities; even a cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed but thereafter management stopped appearing in this tribunal. 8. AR for claimant Sh. Vijay Pal has forcedly argued that the continuity of the contract for almost seven years isa sham and bogus arrangement. Workman has completed the 240 days in a year admittedly. The management has not followed the provision of 25F of Industrial Dispute acttherefore his termination be declared as illegal and he be reinstated with full back wages. He has relied upon the judgment Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council,Sanaur passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 11th April, 2011 whereby the court had held in the similar circumstances termination of the workman is illegal. 9. I have heard the claimant and gone through the record and evidence thereof and my findings are as follows. Admittedly, the claimant is aworkman. Issue no. 1 and 2are related to each other. Unless the claimant proves that he is a workman, no proceeding can be launched under Industrial Dispute act, 1947. Before parting the decision in the above said case, section 2 (oo), 2 (s) and 25F of the actis required to be reproduced herein: Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines the workman, it reads as under: 2 [(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in3753 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person— (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 3 [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.] Section 2 [(oo)] “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or [(bb)] termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health; section 25F- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. 10. Section 2(s) contains an exhaustive definition of the term ‘workman’. It takes within its ambit any person including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward and it is immaterial that the terms of employment are not reduced into writing. The definition also includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an Industrial Dispute or as a consequence of such dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute. Certain exclusions are also given in the definition itself. The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service. The quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the act. 11. Definition of the retrenchment has been couched in a comprehensive manner. It covers every type of termination of the service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. The case of voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on reaching the age of superannuation, termination of service as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation contained therein or termination of the service of the workman on the ground of continued ill health by condition doesn’t fall within the ambit of retrenchment. 12. Once the employer challenge the dispute on the ground that an employee is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the act as herein then he has to satisfy that the workman is not employed for hire or reward. Herein, the claimant has successfully proved that he has been employed for hire or reward; therefore, he is a workman because admittedly, he worked on the post of SafaiKaramchari since 16.10.2010 and his job was of manual nature. He has been paid at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month initially; therefore, no question arises that he is not a workman. 13. Management has further taken the plea that the workman’s service is purely on contract basis and it was stipulated in the initial contract and subsequent contracts which were extended from time to time that his service can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. He had taken the plea of exception as prescribed in section 23754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (oo) that is non-renewal of the contract. However, the plea raised by the management in its written statement is not tenable because of the fact that the contract has been renewed from time to time for a period of six months to a year and it has been continued in the span of seven years and suddenly the claimant’s service has been terminated because his behavior is not up to mark. However, no evidence has been brought by the management to prove the fact that his behavior is not up to mark. Section 2 (oo) which defines the definition of retrenchment states that the contract which has been excluded within the definition of retrenchment shall be for a specific period but admittedly the workman’s job is perennial and regular in nature and his contract has been extended without any break for seven years. Therefore, the case of the workman does not fall within the exception created by the section 2 (oo) of the act. 14. Now come to the next question whether the service of the workman has been terminated illegally. Section 25F couched in a negative form, it imposes a restriction on the employer’s right to retrench the workman and laid down that no workman employed in any industry who has been in a continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched until he has been given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has been expired, or the workman has been paid for the period of notice and he has also been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excesses of six months and notice in the prescribe manner has been served on the appropriate government. These provisions are mandatory in nature. Admittedly, the respondent has not complied with any condition of retrenchment under the impression that the workman’sservices can be terminated at any time which is a false creation. Hence, it is held that the service of the workman has been terminated illegally. Therefore, issue no. 1 and 2 goes in the favor of claimant and against respondent. Order In view of the findings in issue no. 1 and 2, naturally the workman whose service was terminated illegally is required to be reinstated. Hence, this tribunal orders that the workman be reinstated within four weeks from the date of passing of this award with full back wages. Award is accordingly passed. Copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification U/S 17 of the I.D Act. File is consigned to record room. Dated 25.07.2024 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1674.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबिं क, भारत सचं ार णनगम णलणमटेड, िेहरािनू , के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री रोशन लाल, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 92 of 2015) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-155-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92 of 2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dehradun, and, Shri Roshan Lal, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-155-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI ID No. 92/2015 Sh. RoshanLal Vs. B.S.N.L.3755 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Counsels: For Applicant/ Claimant: None for the claimant. For Management/ Respondent: Sh. Dipak Thukral, Ld. AR for management. AWARD Dated: 29.07.2024 1. Sh. P.K. Venu Gopal (Section Officer), government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide letter dated 09.09.2014 had sent the reference to this tribunal for disposal in the following words: ‘Whether the action of the management of Dehradun Telecom District, BSNL, Dehradun in retrenchment from the services of workman ShriRoshanLal S/o Sh. Jaya Das w.e.f. 01.08.2012 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?’ 2. After receiving the reference, both claimant and respondent had been served with the notice. Claimant filed the claim in the present petition stating that he was recruited as a casual labour with Durbhash Kendra, Tyuni (Dehradun) on 01.10.1997 at the rate of 80 rupees/day by Sub-Divisional Engineer Sh. R.S. Kathait. His job was to lay the telephone cables. On 02.03.1998, he was appointed at the monthly pay of Rs. 1200/- but no appointment letter was given. Salary was paid in the bank account. In 2001, name of Durbhash Kendra was changed to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). In 2011, claimant’s salary was increased to Rs. 4500/-. He had requested the authority to regularize him but respondent didn’t regularize him, instead he was told in the March 2012 that General Manager has asked him to remove from service; In case, he wants to work at the rate of Rs. 2500 per month, he will be allowed to work. As such, he had started to work at the above said rate considering his family situation. 3. It is further his case that on 16.09.2011, cable was stolen from Telephone Exchange, Chilhar and letter to that effect was given in his name by the Sub-Divisional Engineer to Dur-Sanchar Dakpatra. On 01.08.2012 when he was going to Vikasnagar from Tyuni for taking his salary, the bus was met with an accident and 27 passengers died in that accident, the claimant was also seriously injured and was admitted in the hospital. On 01.03.2013, when he had come to join his duty after getting fit, he was told that another worker was deployed in his place. He had requested the respondent to take him back on duty but no one paid any heed; as such, he filed the present claim before the Labour Commissioner and his claim was referred to this tribunal for disposal. 4. Respondent had appeared and filed the written statement. He had taken several preliminary objections inter-alia that claimant was never appointed at any post nor was he kept as a daily casual labour; no wages had been paid by the employer. On merit, he denied each and every fact. However, he admitted that in the month of October 2000, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited was incorporated. He submits that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. Rejoinder has been filed by the claimant in which he denied the averment made by the respondent in his W.S. and affirmed the averment made by him in the claim statement. 6. From the pleadings of the party vide order dated 05.04.2016, following issues had been framed: 1. Whether the action of the management of Dehradun Telecom district, BSNL, Dehradun in retrenchment from the services of workman Sh. RoshanLal S/o Sh. Jaya Das, w.e.f. 01.08.2012 is legal and justified? If so its effect? 2. To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date? 7. Both claimant and respondent had led the evidence in support of their claim and rebuttal. Workman had examined himself as WW1. On behalf of the management, one Vivek Tiwari had come into witness box. 8. On behalf of the claimant, it had been argued that it is a clear example of unfair labour practice adopted by the employer. He had drawn the attention of this tribunal towards a number of documents brought by him in the evidence i.e. photocopy of First Information Report U/s 379 IPC regarding the theft of cable given by Sub-Divisional Engineer, the document of work allotment to him by Divisional Engineer Sh. S.K. Sharma, Nine copies of certificates issued by customers in favour of Sh. RoshanLal, information given to Patwari about the theft, details of the account of the claimant in which an amount of Rs. 4,182/- and Rs. 8719/- was deposited on 17.11.2011 in provident fund. He submits from the evidence he had established that there is a connection between him and respondent of employee and employer otherwise there is no reason as to why these documents are in his possession. He had further drawn the attention of this tribunal towards the cross-examination of the management where management witness submitted that he had no personal knowledge about the claimant Sh. RoshanLal, he didn’t know if Sh. RoshanLal was engaged with D.O.T. in the year 1997; he could not say whether in the year 1997 and 1998 Sh. R.S. Chauhan was the Sub- Divisional Engineer and claimant was appointedby him;he didn’t admit that D.O.T. became BSNL and all the casual3756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workers for D.O.T. were terminated, even he had no knowledge whether R.S. Chauhan and Sh. R.S. Kathait who were then Sub-Divisional Engineers had re-engaged the claimant for work; he admitted that documents marked X contains the signature of Divisional Engineer Sh. A.K. Sharma and document marked Y appears to be the report submitted by Mr. Bisht alleging theft of cable. 9. Per contra, respondent had argued that the documents relied by the claimant does not indicate that he was ever employed by the respondent. He submits that the claimant has not produced any appointment letter, wages slip, Identity Card in order to prove employee-employer relationship. His further argument is that respondent being government organization cannot appoint any person without issuing any appointment letter and without following the due procedure of Law; management has a separate procedure of recruitment. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in “workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd.Vs State of Tamilnadu [(2009) 13 SCC 374]” and“Indian Drugs and pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. workmen, India Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.”, (2007) 1 SCC 408 and submitted that workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages; claim deserves to be dismissed. 10. Before parting with the decision, it is important to mention here that vide order dated 22.07.2019, Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal had passed the award in favour of the workman and against the management because of the fact that management had stopped coming after filing of written statement. On application by management, ex- parte award was set aside subject to the cost of Rs. 5000/-. 11. No doubt, appointment letter, identity card and the documents issued by the respondent are necessary to establish the relationship of employer and employee. However, it is not the sole criteria for establishing the relationship. In most of the cases when the workman was employed as casual labour or in muster roll labour, no document has been issued by the employer. But still he can prove the relationship by brining the circumstances indicating that he was the employee of the employer. In the case of Chintaman Rao reported in 1958 (II) LLJ the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the concept of employment involves three ingredients. (I) Employer (II) Employee (III) The contract of employment. The employer is one who engages the service of the other person. The employee is one who works for another hire or reward. The employment is the contract of service between the employer and employee where under the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and supervision. It is control of the management which is necessary element of the relationship of master and servant. 12. In the present case the workman since beginning has maintained that he was working under the control and supervision of the SDE BSNL and discharging the functions of a regular employee. He has also stated so while testifying as WW1. On his behalf photocopies of document have been filed. Management in his evidence has not contradicted. Even the management witness is unaware whether the claimant was engaged with D.O.T in the year 1997; he could not say whether in the year 1997 and 1998, one Sh. R.S Chauhan was the Sub-Divisional Engineer and claimant was appointed by him. The witness is evasive in answer. From the documents produced by the claimant, it is proved that the claimant was working with the management who was later on- incorporated with BSNL and the evidence suggest that the tenure of work was from 1997 to August 2012 spreading over 14 years. Now, it is to be seen if the service of the claimant was terminated illegally and he was made a victim of unfair labour practice. 13. Naturally, the management has adopted unfair labour practice for taking the work from the workman without issuing any appointment letter, and other documents for years. Now, it has to be seen whether the workman services have been terminated illegally. Workman had alleged that his services have been terminated illegally when he had come to join after recovering from the accidental injuries. 14. Section 25F of the Act prescribe condition precedent to retrenchment of the workman. It is reproduced under: section 25F- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Definition of the retrenchment has been couched in a comprehensive manner. It covers every type of termination of the service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. The case of voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on reaching the age of superannuation, termination of service as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation contained therein or termination of the service of the workman on the ground of continued ill health by condition doesn’t fall within the ambit of retrenchment.3757 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 15. Admittedly, the respondent has not complied with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. These provision are mandatory in nature therefore, it is held that service of the workman is illegally terminated. RELIEF Naturally once it is held that the service of the workman is illegally terminated then reinstatement with full back wages would follow. But, keeping in view of the age of the workman i.e. around 50 years now, reinstatement is not an appropriate solution/relief. In lieu of the illegal termination of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac) compensation is an appropriate relief. Hence, management is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- within one month from the date of passing this award. Award is passed accordingly. ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1675.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार णनिेशक, खदु फया ब्यरू ो, गहृ मत्रं ालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली; ज.ेएस. फैणिकेशन, पणिम सागरपरु , नई दिल्ली; ज.ेएम.डी. एंटरप्राइजजे , पणिम सागरपरु , नई दिल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के सबं द्ध णनयोजकों और श्री रिजीत हसहं , कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई दिल्ली पंचाट(संिभि संख्या 282 of 2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ै प्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 22.08.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-156-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 27th August, 2024 S.O. 1675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 282 of 2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi ;J.S. Fabrication, West Sagarpur, New Delhi ;J.M.D. Enterprises, West Sagarpur, New Delhi, and, Shri Ranjeet Singh, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 22.08.2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-156-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 282/2021 Sh. Ranjeet Singh, S/o Late Sh. Iqbal Singh, R/o 24-C, Deep Enclave, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi-110059. Versus 1. The Director of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, 35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021. 2. J.S. Fabrication, RZ-456316, Gali No. 07, Gitanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046. 3. J.M.D. Enterprises, RZ-411-A/318, Gali No.- 07, Gitanjali Park,3758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] West Sagarpur, New Delhi-110046. Counsels: For Claimant: None For Respondent: None for M-1 Sh. Shrikant Lakhera, Ld. AR for M-2 & 3 AWARD By this composite order, I shall dispose of this application of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after referred as an Act) filed by the claimant against the respondents, for his illegal termination. Claim of the workman is that he has been serving the management-1 through management-2 & 3 since 01.05.2001 at the post of Book Binder at the last drawn salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Management-2 & 3 are contractors as defined U/s 2(c) of the contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the management-1 used to award contracts for purpose of Book Bindings to the respondent- 2 & 3 from time to time. Being the family business, both the management-2 & 3 are government contractors and engaged in the business of Book Bindings since long. He submitted that sometime management-2 obtained contract for book bindings from the management-1 or in alternatively the management-3 used to obtain contract from the management-1, whereas he used to perform duties for both the management simultaneously. No appointment letter was issued to him by the managements. During the period from 01.06.2019 to 07.05.2020, workman successfully bounded 10,926 books which costs to Rs. 3,82,410/- @ Rs. 35/- per book, but the management denied to release the same, however to persistent demands on the part of workman, the management-2 had made part payment to the extent of Rs. 47,445/- in four installments whereas remaining Rs. 3,34,965/- being withheld without any cogent reason. On 08.05.2020, when the workman reported for duties, he was denied the entry by the management-1. On the same day he was terminated from his service. He had worked from 08.05.2020 to 01.05.2021 continuously with the entire satisfaction of his superiors, as such he rendered more than 240 days. The termination without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D Act. He felt aggrieved by the wrongful termination, the workman sent a demand notice on 26.08.2020 under speed post which was received by the management-2, but failed to respond the same. He had filed complaint against the management-2 & 3 before labour department, Hari Nagar, Delhi and also initiated conciliation proceedings, but, it has resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer to direct the management-2 to reinstate him back on duty along with full back wages and consequential benefits. W.S has been filed by the respondent-1, 2 & 3. They had denied the averment made in the claims. They have submitted that this claim is liable to be dismissed. After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 04.07.2022 i.e.- 1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable. 2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between respondent no. 1 and the claimant. 3. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by management no. 2 without following the procedure of ID Act and without complying the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief of reinstatement into service. Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. None appeared on behalf of management-1. On behalf of management-2 & 3 Sh. Shrikant Lakhera appered. Claimant has not brought any evidence i.e documents and oral to substantiate his claim, inspite of providing a number of opportunities. In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, it appears that he is not interested to pursue his case. His claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room. Date : 22/7/2024 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1676.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार मेससि पटेल इंजीणनयररंग िक्सि (णिजाग), णिशाखापत्तनम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री जे.ए. सत्यम, कामगार,3759 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हिै राबाि पंचाट (संिभि संख्या L.C. 1/2017) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ैप्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-14012/22/2016-आईआर(डीयू)] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024 S.O. 1676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C. No. 1/2017) 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 Patel Engineering Workers (Vizag),Vishakapatnam, and Shri J.A. Satyam, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024. [No. L-14012/22/2016-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of August, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 1/2017 Between: Sri J.A. Satyam, S/o Kurmayya, D.No. 63-1-135/1, Ashoknagar, Near Coromande Gate, Malkapuram, Vishakapatnam-530011. Petitioner AND M/s Patel Engineering Workers (Vizag), 207, Old Bake House, Nagindas Master Road, Extension Fort, Vishakapatnam-400001. Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Party in person For the Respondent: Shri D.N. Murthy, Advocate AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-14012/22/2016 (IR(DU)) dated 19/12/2016 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of M/s Patel Engineering Works (Vizag) A Contractor Engaged in Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, In terminating the services of Shri J.A. Satyam, Ex-Gas Cutter, workman w.e.f. 28.10.2015 without complying section 25 (F) of I.D. Act is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 1/2017 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity accorded to him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since the Petitioner has3760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‘No-claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of August, 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, 28 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1677.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार अध्यक्ष सह प्रबिं णनिेशक, भारत सचं ार णनगम णलणमटेड; नई दिल्ली; मख्ु य महाप्रबिं क (बी.एस.एन.एल.), ए.पी. िरू सचं ार सर्किल, एणबड्स, हिै राबाि; प्रिान महाप्रबिं क, हिै राबाि िरू सचं ार णजला, आिशनि गर, हिै राबाि; उप मडं ल अणिकारी (फोन) IV, भारत सचं ार णनगम णलणमटेड, बगे मपटे , णसकंिराबाि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्रीमती एन. लणलता, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हिै राबाि पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 11/2011) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ैप्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-157-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024 S.O. 1677—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C. No. 11/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited; New Delhi; The Chief General Manager (B.SNL),A.P. Telecom Circle, Abids, Hyderabad; The Principal General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad; The Sub Divisional Officer (phones) IV,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Begumpet, Secunderabad, and Smt. N. Lalitha, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-157-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar Presiding Officer Dated the 9th day of August, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.11/2011 Between: Smt. N. Lalitha,3761 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] W/o Late N. Iylaiah, R/o H.No.17-138, New Venkateshwara Nagar, Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad. .. .Petitioner AND 1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., B.SNL Corporate Office, 2nd floor, B Wing, Statesman House, B-148, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Chief General Manager (B.SNL), A.P. Telecom Circle, Door Sanchar Bhavan, Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad. 3. The Principal General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District, B.SNL Bhavan, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer (phones) IV, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., Begumpet, Secunderabad. … .Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri B. Pavan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate AWARD Smt. N. Lalitha who worked as casual labourer (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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and conversion into full time casual labourer and regularization. 2. The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:- Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Mala community. It is submitted that during March 1992, when the office of S.D.O.(Phones), Secunderabad was shifted from P&T Colony to P.G. Road, Secunderabad, the Sub-Divisional Officer-IV, Secunderabad has taken the note approval of the Deputy General Manager, Secunderabad for engaging part time casual Mazdoor for sweeping and scavenging works etc., involving about 2000 Sq. ft., carpet area on contract basis with a consolidated payment of Rs.500/- per month. Later on, the consolidated wages have been decided at the rate of Rs.700/- instead of originally sanctioned at the rate of Rs.500 per month. The work of the Petitioner initially involved 6 hours per day. It is submitted that the list of contingent employees working in Hyderabad Telecom district was also later prepared by the authorities wherein the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl.No.34. It is further submitted that during 1998, Respondents required the Petitioner to file an affidavit on oath indicating the date of birth of the Petitioner. As the Petitioner does not have date of birth certificate from school authorities and accordingly applicant filed a self declaratory affidavit basing upon the version of the village Sarpanch in her own statement on 20.5.1998. It is submitted that the Petitioner worked in the office of the SDOP, Secunderabad from 26.10.1992 onwards without any break and has completed 240 days in the year 1993,1994, 1995, 1996,1997 and 1999 at the rate of 6 hours per day at a consolidated payment of Rs.700/- per month. It is submitted that in view of Departmental orders No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 16.9.1999 and No.269-13/99-STN-II, dated 25.8.2000, Petitioner made a representation to the 3rd Respondent in the month of June 2001 for consideration of her case for full time conversion. Petitioner submitted another representation dated nil during the year 2001. In the meanwhile, the Government of India established a company by name Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., w.e.f. 1.10.2000 and transferred all the staff on as it is where it is basis to the newly established company. It is submitted that her petition for conversion of part time casual mazdoor into full time casual mazdoor on 25.1.2002 which was3762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] duly certified by the 4th Respondent and forwarded to the office of the 3rd Respondent. It is submitted that as per the service particulars enclosed to the petition duly attested by the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner has worked for 47 days in 1992, 307 days in 1993, 299 days in 1994, 310 days in 1995, 312 days in 1996, 296 days in 1997,308 days in 1998, 285 days in 1999, 297 days in 2000 and 295 days in 2001 as on 31/12/2001 and has completed a total of 2756 working days. It is further submitted that Petitioner continued to be engaged during 200 to 2009 up to 30.6.2009 and has completed 240 days in each year upto December 2008. Petitioner also submitted a representation to the 3rd Respondent for implementation of revised wages on 20.8.2007. 4th Respondent in response to the letter of 3rd Respondent, vide his letter dated 30.9.2008 submitted a detailed report wherein he has specifically stated that the Petitioner was engaged on 26.10.1992 as a part time casual labourer with a salary of Rs.700/- per month, by the then SDOP.IV, Secunderabad. During 1992-1993 that later on three SDOs were changed, that the present incumbent was posted as SDO in December 2000 and explaining other difficulties and on that ground stated that he has recommended the case of the Petitioner way back on 31.1.2001, that he did not receive any communication for revision of wages of the casual labour and that during the year 2002 to 2003 when contractors were appointed for housekeeping services, he sought clarification from the GM North Office and that he was clarified that the appointment of the contractors is not applicable in the case of the Petitioner. thus, he sought necessary instructions to be issued on whether to continue or disengage the services of the Petitioner? Upon this report, 3rd Respondent directed the GMTD North to take appropriate action vide letter dated 23.10.2008. It is submitted that Petitioner submitted another representation dated 16.3.2009 for renewal of sanction of her engagement in an increase in the wages and the same was rejected, as far as the revision of wages is concerned, without reference to her claim for conversion into full time casual labourer and regularization. It is submitted that 4th Respondent directed the Petitioner not to come to office with effect from 1.7.2009. This sudden action of the Respondents in preventing the Petitioner from attending the duty amounts to oral termination of the services of the Petitioner amounts to retrenchment without following provisions of Section 25 F. It is submitted that Petitioner having worked for more than 17 years in the Respondent’s office, is eligible for conversion into full time casual labourers status and subsequent regularization. In terms of the orders issued by the Department of Telecommunications, such inaction on the part of the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that a person by name Smt. Lakshmamma engaged in the 4th Respondent office only for 2 hours per day, on 15.6.1990 has already been regularised. Except the Petitioner and two persons by name, Smt. J. Balamani and Smt. M. Jangamma, the services of all other persons were regularised. Hence, prayed to declare the action of Respondents in considering the case of the Petitioner for conversion into full time casual labourer and subsequent regularization as bad in law and the termination of the Petitioner on oral orders with effect from 1.7.2009 as violative of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act amounting to retrenchment and declare the applicant as eligible for reinstatement with back wages and all attendant benefits. 3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:- It is submitted that the Petitioner has not filed any document with regard to letter of engagement and payment of for the period from 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009 for the purpose of Section 25 F of I.D. Act as per the settle law. The retention schedule stipulated 5 years relating to muster rolls and contingent payment, and as such, there is no record as available except contract wages at the rate of Rs.700/- depending upon the exigencies. It is submitted that there is a ban of casual labour vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.) dated 12.2.1999 and the engagement restricted to a year period of 60 days in contingencies and this was extended to 100 days vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.) dated 15.6.1999 with continuance of absolute ban by withdrawing all powers and the engagement only be under contingencies. The said contractual engagement does not entitle the Petitioner for reinstatement unless there is engagement for a period of 240 days from 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009 while engaged as a casual labour due to shortage of sanctioned strength. It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged on contract and they said engagement is not due to shortage of sanctioned Group B staff and as such the policy contained in letter No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 16.9.1999 and letter No.29-13/99-STN-II dated 25.8.2000 stipulating conversion of part time labour as full time has no application. Thus, there was no scope to consider the representation of the Petitioner at a any time and also not capable of being considered as a left out case. The Petitioner is also not eligible to be considered under the policy contained in letter 269-94/98-STN-II dated 29.9.2000 wherein the regularization has been considered as one time measure. It is submitted that the policy contained in letters dated 16.9.99 and 25.8.2020, 29.9.2000 is related to part time casual labour engaged due to shortage of Group D strength and has no application to contract labour engaged in contingencies as permitted inspite of absolute ban vide letter dated 12.2.99, 15.6.1999 by withdrawing all powers to departmental officers. The Petitioner was paid through contingencies on ACG-17 as and when there is engagement and no record is available after the expiry of retention schedule of 5 years. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues emerge for determination in this matter:- I. Whether action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner is legal and justified? II. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for regularization in the employment of Respondent as alleged in her claim statement?3763 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] III. To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled? Findings:- 5. Petitioner claims that she had worked in the office of SDOP(Phones), Secunderabad from 26.10. 1992 onwards without any break and has completed 240 days in the year 1993,1994,1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 at the rate of 6 hours per day at a consolidated payment of Rs.700/- per month. Further, Petitioner has taken the plea that during the year 1999, Department of Telecommunications issued an order dated 16.9.1999 for conversion of part time casual labourers working with 4 or more hours per day and who have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months, into full time casual labourers as a one time measure. Again, Department of Telecom Services, issued order dated 25.8.2000, again giving one time relaxation for conversion of part time casual labourers with less than 4 hours of duty per day and who have worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months into full time casual labourers. Further, Petitioner claims that the Respondent has terminated her services through oral order with effect from 1.7.2009 amounting to retrenchment as per settled law and as such in violation of the provision of Section 25 F of ID Act. 6. In support of her claim, Petitioner has filed the affidavit of chief statement of the witness as a witness wherein she has reiterated the averments made in the claim statement but despite the sufficient opportunity extended, Petitioner WW1 she did not turn up for cross examination. As per Principle of Evidence Act , the chief statement of witness can not be read in evidence unless witness has produced himself for cross examination. Therefore, the plea of the Petitioner can not be said to be proved merely on the basis of chief statement of WW1 as witness did not turn up for cross examination. However, the Petitioner has not filed documents i.e., attendance register, salary slip etc., to establish her claim that she had worked in the service of the Respondent for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her alleged termination that is 1.7.2009. The burden of proof to establish her claim lies upon the Petitioner. But she failed to discharge onus of proof to establish her claim that she had worked for 240 days continuously in the service of Respondent in a calendar year just preceding from the date of her termination. In the absence of afore said proof, Petitioner claimant failed that she has been terminated in contravention of provision of Sec.25F and 25G of the I.D. Act, 1947. 7. As regards other documents filed by the Petitioner in evidence, the contents of these documents are also not proved by the oral testimony of the WW1, as this witness did not turn up for cross examination. Therefore, on the basis of perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that Petitioner has utterly failed to discharge her onus to prove her claim that she had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just proceeding from the date of her termination. Thus, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner is held legal and justified. This Point No.I is answered accordingly. 8. Point No.II:- Petitioner has taken the plea in her claim statement that, applicant has worked in the office of the SDOP Secunderabad from 26.10.1992 onwards without any break and has completed 240 days in the year 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 at the rate of 6 hours per day consolidated payment of Rs.700/- per month. During 1999, the Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications issued an order No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 16.9.1999 for conversion of part time casual labourers working with 4 or more hours per day and who have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months into full time casual labourers as a one time measure. Again the Department of Telecom Services issued another order vide No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 25.8.2000 again giving another one time relaxation for conversion of part time casual labourers with less than 4 hours of duty per day and who have worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months into full time casual labourers. On the basis of the above orders, after waiting for reasonable time for the implementation of the orders by the Respondents, the Petitioner made representation to the 3rd Respondent in the month of June, 2001 for consideration of her case for full time conversion. The representation of the Petitioner has been forwarded to the 2nd Respondent by the 3rd Respondent. Where upon, the 2nd Respondent sought clarification from the 3rd Respondent as to why the name of the Petitioner is not included by the 3rd Respondent when the information was called for during the year 1999 by the 2nd Respondent vide letter No.TA/STB/20-2/Corr/PTS/2001-02/5 dated 24.7.2001. The Petitioner is not aware of the subsequent progress made in this regard. 9. Although in support of her plea Petitioner has filed the Chief affidavit of herself as WW1 and therein she has reiterated the plea taken in the claim statement. But the Petitioner as a witness WW1did not turn up for cross examination despite sufficient opportunities granted to her. The chief evidence of the witness cannot be read in evidence unless witness produce herself for cross examination. As regards the documentary evidence, Petitioner has filed circular issued by Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi dated 16.9.1999, 25.8.2000 and 29.9.2000. The perusal of these documents reveal that it was issued by Respondent for the conversion of part time casual labourers working with 4 hours or more hours per day into full time casual labourers and the condition mentioned there in for conversion of part time casual labourers into full time casual labourers is mentioned that the workmen should be engaged as a casual labour subject to suitability and they should be engaged as casual labourers only where there is a shortage of Group D staff (i.e., existence of vacant Group D posts after accounting for all TSMs and existing full time casual labourers) and no posts should be created for the purpose. Therefore, the onus to prove the fact that the Petitioner Workman was engaged. as3764 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] casual labourer subject to suitability and there was a shortage of Group D staff in the Respondent, lies upon the Petitioner but Petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proof by her evidence that she was eligible for the conversion of part time casual labourers into full time casual labourer in the Respondent employment as per aforesaid circular. 10. On the other hand, Respondent in his counter has contended that the retention schedule stipulated 5 years relating to muster rolls and contingent payment and as such there is no record as available except contract wages at the rate of Rs.700/- depending upon the exigencies. In this connection, it is submitted that there is ban of casual labour vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.) dated 12.2.1999 and the engagement restricted to a period of 60 days in contingencies and this was extended to 100 days vide letter No.269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.) dated 15.6.1999 with continuance of absolute ban by withdrawing all powers and the engagement only be under contingencies. It is further contended that the said contractual engagement does not entitle the Petitioner for reinstatement unless there is engagement for a period of 240 days from 1.6.2008 to 30.6.2009 while engaged as a casual labour due to shortage of sanctioned strength. The Petitioner was engaged on contract and the said engagement is not due to shortage of sanctioned Group D staff and as such the policy contained in letter dated 16.9.1999 and letter dated 25.8.2000 stipulating conversion of part time labour as full time has no application. Further, it is contended that there was no scope to consider the representation of the Petitioner at any time and also not capable of being considered as a left out case. The Petitioner is also not eligible to be considered under the policy contained in letter No.269-94/98-STN-II dated 29.9.2000 wherein the regularization has been considered as one time measure. Further, it is contended that the Petitioner has admitted in her claim statement that she was engaged upto December, 2008 thereby leading to the conclusion that there is no more disengagement from 1.7.2009 for the purpose of violation of Section 25 F of I.D. Act, 1947 and the petition is to be dismissed on this ground. The comparison with other cases is not relevant. 11. Further, Respondent has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of BSNL vs Man Singh, 2012 1 SCC 558, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court have held that, “there can be no reinstatement of the Workman engaged on daily wages on the ground that they had worked for 240 days and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.” 12. Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that Petitioner has failed to prove her claim that she was entitled for regularization on the basis of number of working days with working hours in the Respondent employment as per scheme. This Point is decided against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent. 13. Point No. III: In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II, it is held that Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for and claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Thus, Point No. III is answered accordingly. AWARD In the result, the action of the Respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited., in orally terminating the services of the Petitioner Smt. N. Lalitha is hereby held legal and justified. Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement/regularization into service. Hence, the petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as such the present petition stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 9th day of August, 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 NIL3765 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1678.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार णनिेशक, मेसस ि स्नाइपर एफएमएस इंणडया प्राइिटे णलणमटेड, णसकंिराबाि, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री एम.शकं र, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हिै राबाि पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 68/2022) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ैप्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-158-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024 S.O. 1678.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C. No. 68/2022) 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 The Director, M/s Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad, and Shri M. Shankar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-158-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 21th day of June, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 68/2022 Between: Shri M.Shankar, H.No. 7-1-304/A/1, Dasaram Basthi, SR Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500038. ..…. Petitioner AND The Director, M/s Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd. Flat No.301, 3rd Floor, Srivari Residency, H.No.12-13-118, Street No.3, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500017. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri Koka Satyanarayana, Advocate3766 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/16/2022-B1 dated 13/07/2022 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 Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of M/s Sniper FMS India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad in termination of services of Shri M.Shankar, ex-workman is legal, proper and justified or not? If not to what relief Shri M.Shankar, ex-workman is entitled to?” The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 68/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Record reveals that notice served on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is dismissed and a ‘No Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 21th day of June, 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, 28 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1679.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबिं क, िरू सचं ार णजला, भारत सचं ार णनगम णलणमटेड, नलगोंडा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री हचतं ा कृष्ियै ा, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हिै राबाि पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 152/2013) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ैप्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-159-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024 S.O. 1679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C. No. 152/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, Telecom Dist, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nalgonda, and Shri Chinta Krishnaiah, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-159-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.3767 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar Presiding Officer Dated the 8th day of August, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.152/2013 Between: Sri Chinta Krishnaiah, S/o Late Kondaiah, R/o H.No.1-38, Thoragallu Village, Kanagallu Mandal, Post Chattlachannaram, Nalgonda District – 508247. ..…. Petitioner AND The General Manager, Telecom Dist, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nalgonda – 508 001. …. Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri B.S.R. Murhty, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate AWARD Sri Ch. Krishnaiah who worked as Casual Mazdoor (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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit. 2. The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:- The Petitioner submitted that he was a casual mazdoor in the Respondent organization BSNL which is the Government of India company and its functions are mainly laying the cables, line works, phone repairing, cable digging, cable joints etc.. It is submitted that the Respondent was engaging the persons for the above works in the telephone exchanges from time to time for their needs and the said persons on engagement will be either permanently or temporarily or casually. Further, it is submitted that normally the persons who are recruited will be disengaged after completing the above works for some days. But some persons engaged casually will be continued years together according to the needs of the officers of BSNL. Out of those persons, the Petitioner is one of them and he was engaged as casual mazdoor continuously for years together. It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged in January 1997 by the SDOT, Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda District for cable laying work, telephone repairs, cable joints, cable digging, line works, etc. before setting up of BSNL and taking into continuous service of the Petitioner into consideration, he was engaged continuously from 1.10.2000. After setting up of BSNL as Government Company from 1.10.2000 with transfer of telecommunication services by the Department of Telecommunications vide resolutions dated 24.1.2001 effective from 1.10.2000 and published in the Gazette on 17.3.2001. It is submitted that the Petitioner was continued as casual mazdoor from 1.10.2000 till 31.12.2012, on which day he was orally terminated. It is submitted that he was engaged for about 15 years without break in the Prakasam Bazar telephone exchange. Later, he was reengaged from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 orally. It is submitted that he was engaged in January 1997 under the control of linemen till 2005. The S.D.O.T. was paying Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that he was continued in the same exchange from 2006 to 2009 and received Rs.1500/- in cash from S.D.O.T.. It is submitted that from 2009 to 2012, he was engaged and continued in the same exchange and got payment of Rs. 3500/- in Cash. Further, it is submitted that from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013, he was reengaged and continued in the same exchange and was paid Rs.4000/- in cash. It is submitted that Petitioner was orally terminated on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation, though he was engaged continuously from January 1997 to 31.12.2012. The J.T.O., have given certificates about working of the Petitioner under them. It is submitted3768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] that the action of the Respondent in not continuing, not regularising and terminating the Petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that he along with other mazdoors, had made representations to the Respondent dated 26.4.2008 and 28.4.2008. It is submitted that to his representation dated 8.08.2011, the Respondent wrote a letter to Petitioner on 29.10.2011 directing to submit relevant documents like appointment order, place of engagement, monthly payment details etc.. Petitioner submitted a letter on 22.1.2013 to the Respondent in reply. Further, it is submitted that though he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) the matter was not settled in the conciliation. It is submitted that Petitioner is a poor Workman belonging to SC ‘Madiga’ community and is having wife and 2 children. He has no other alternative income except salary from the BSNL. Therefore, prayed to set aside the oral termination order dated 31.12.2012 directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with back wages. 3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:- It is submitted that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is a Government of India Enterprise formed in the year 2000. It is further submitted that Department of Telecommunications have imposed total ban on engagement of casual labour in the telecom circles/ districts vide D.O.T., New Delhi letter No.270/ 6/84- STN dated 30.3.1985. This ban was extended to project circles vide DOT New Delhi letter dated 22.6.1988 thereby leaving no scope for engagement of any casual labour thereafter in any form. It is submitted that Department of Telecommunications vide letter dated 12.2.1999 imposed total ban on the engagement of any casual labour by the Departmental Officers and withdrawn all the powers through Departmental officers by amending the provisions in P&T Manual, Volume-X except permitting engagement in contingencies for a period not exceeding 60 days. This policy was further affirmed in letter dated 15.6.1999 with permission to engage casual labour in exigencies for a period of not less than 100 days. It is submitted that the assertion of the above casual labour to the effect that they have been engaged as such by the Junior Telecom Officer for the periods as mentioned by them in the claim statement is against the existing policy in the Respondent department are false and denied. It is submitted that Respondent is engaging the persons for the workshop of laying the cables, Line works, phone repairing, cable digging, cable joints, etc., in the telephone exchanges from time to time for their needs on project sites purely on temporary basis. It is further submitted that normally the workers who were engaged will be disengaged after completing the project work. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that he was orally terminated on 31/12/2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged continuously from January, 1997 to 31.12.2012 without any breaks before and after setting up of BSNL and he has worked for more than 15 years in the same exchange and he is entitled to continue in the service centre regularization and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner never worked in the Respondent department for 240 man days continuously in calendar year. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any details and letters of appointment and payment of wages no evidence is placed showing his continuous working with the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8 hours in a working day which is essential for the purpose of any industrial dispute. It is submitted that it is a fact that there is a ban in the department and no casual worker is engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than 100 days depending on the requirement in the department for project sites. It is further submitted that the said ban is applicable to project sites also. It is submitted that the Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily wages for the worker endeared by him on project site. He never worked with the department continuously for more than 240 days. Hence, there is no violation of statutory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. As such, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, that is reinstatement of like regularization with etcetera. 4. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues emerge for determination in this case:- I. Whether the action of the Respondent management- BSNL vide oral Order dated 31st December, 2012, in terminating the services of the Petitioner in contravention of provisions of Section 25 F of ID Act is legal and justified? II. To what relief if any, the workman is entitled for? 5. During the hearing, the Workman has testified himself as a WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited in his evidence as Ex.W1 to Ex.W8. On the other hand, Respondent has testified in oral evidence as MW1 and the witness has also proved documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M4 in support of his contentions. 6. Heard the Learned Counsels for both the parties. Perused the record. Findings:- 7. Point No.I:- WW1 in his chief affidavit has testified that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the SDOT Prakasam Bazar, Nalgonda district for cable laying work, telephone repairs, cable joints, cable digging, line works, etc., before setting up of BSNL and taking into consideration of his services, he was engaged continuously from 1.10.2000 onwards in the same exchange, even after setting up of BSNL which is a government company. Further, WW1 states that he was continued as a casual mazdoor for said works in the same exchange upto 31.12.2012 without any break and he was orally terminated vide order dated 31.12.2012. Further, witness testifies that he was engaged by the department for about 15 years without any break and he was also reengaged from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 and3769 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] on which day he was again orally terminated. Further, WW1 states that he was orally terminated vide order dated 31.12.2012 without any notice or paid any retrenchment compensation. He was engaged continuously from 1997 to 31.12.2012 without any break for more than 15 years. Further witness states that JTO have given certificates on 15/10/2009,30/10/2009 and 20/10/2012 about his working in exchange and these certificates have been marked as exhibits. Witness also states that he worked for more than 240 days in a year and he is entitled for regularization on par with the permanent employees either in continuing him in employment or regularising his services or paying retrenchment compensation. Hence, the action of the Respondent in not considering him for regularization and terminating services is illegal. 8. Further, in support of his plea, Petitioner Workman has also filed documents Ex.W1 to W8. Undisputedly, Petitioner has not filed any appointment letter said to be issued by the Respondent in his name or any pay slip as a proof of his appointment or payment of wages for the alleged period of his employment with the Respondent. Petitioner has not filed any attendance register as a proof of his employment in Respondent office for alleged period. Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 contains the provision of retrenchment extracted as below:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; 9. It is settled law that burden of proof to prove the fact that workman has worked for 240 days continuously in the Respondent corporation in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination lies upon the workman. In this context Hon’ble Apex Court have laid down the decisions which are mentioned as below:- a. In the case of GM., BSNL and others V. Mahesh Chand AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1328, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.” b. In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani AIR 2002 SC page 1147, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “the onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year – In absence of proof of receipt of salary or wages record of appointment, filing of an affidavit by workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. c. In the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “ It was for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months’3770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] period.” d. In the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S Mills Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan and another AIR 2005 SC 4065, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his termination.” 10. In order to discharge onus of proof, of the fact that Petitioner Workman has worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from his date of termination. Petitioner has not filed any document i.e., attendance register, pay slip or any appointment letter. So far as documents that has been filed by the Petitioner in support of his case are, Ex.W1 to W3, these documents are alleged service certificates stated to be issued by the Respondent management. Ex.W1 bears the name of the Petitioner and it is also mentioned that he has worked in the year 2000. Ex.W1 service certificate alleged to have been issued by the JTO, on 15.10.2009. Ex.W1 has been disputed and a denied by the Respondent as a forged document. Further Ex.W2 is also a service certificate alleged to be issued by the Respondent in the name of Petitioner and contents of Ex.W2 shows that the Petitioner has worked as daily wager during the year from 9.6.2009 to 30.10.2009. Ex.W2 has also been disputed and denied by the Respondent. Further, Ex.W3 is also service certificate which reveals that name of the Petitioner has been mentioned as a daily labour during the year 1.11.2010 to 20.10.2012. Ex.W3 has also been disputed and denied by the Respondent. The onus of proof lies upon the Petitioner to prove that Ex.W1 to W3 service certificates have been issued by the competent authority of the Respondent. But Petitioner fails to discharge his onus regarding proof of these documents. The rest of the documents Ex.W4, Ex.W5 and Ex.W6 does not pertain to the fact of the working days of the Petitioner. 11. WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent Counsel and in his cross examination witness stated that, he joined BSNL in the year 2000 and he was given appointment letter in the year 2000 by the BSNL but the same is lost. Further, WW1 states that Ex.W1 was given to him in the year 2009 issued by JTO Mr Saraiah. At the time of his initial appointment, Mr. Saraiah issued appointment order to him. He studied up to 10th class and he is able to read and understand the contents of Ex.W1. Further, witness states that in Ex.W1, the year of appointment is mentioned as 2000, but not subsequent years. Further witness states that Ex. W2 has been issued for the period mentioned in it i.e., 9.6.2009 to 30.10.2009 only. The Ex. W1 and W2 were not issued in the same month. But the perusal of these Ex.W1 and W2 goes to reveal that these documents has been issued on the date 15.10.2009 and 30.10.2009 respectively in the same month. On this aspect, the submission of witness is contradictory to his own statement. Further witness states that, it is not true to suggest that Ex.W1 and W2 were created by him for the purpose of this case, as the same have been issued in the same month. Further, witness states that whatever he has stated in the claim statement regarding his date of joining is correct. But in his deposition, date of joining is incorrect. It is not true to suggest that he has filed this case falsely in order to harass the Respondent management. Further witness states that he has not been selected for the post being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he has not made any application in response to any notification of the Respondent management for recruitment of the department. Thus, from the aforesaid statement of WW1, the claim of the Petitioner that he has worked continuously for 240 days in Respondent organization just preceding from the date of his oral termination, is not established. 12. On the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in support of the contention of the counter. MW1 has stated in his chief affidavit that the claim of the Petitioner is denied by the Respondent and the plea of the Petitioner that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the Respondent and have done continuous service from 1.10.2000 is false and denied. Further MW1 states that Respondent denied statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged in January 1997 and was paid amount of Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. Further, MW1 states that the averment of the claim statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged from 2006 to 2009 continuously with the same exchange is also denied. Further, MW1 states that the averment of the claim statement is denied by the Respondent that the Petitioner was orally terminated on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged from January 1997 to 31.12.2012. Further, MW1 states that it is false and denied that the Petitioner has worked for more than 15 years and he is entitled to continue in the service and for regularization. MW1 states the Petitioner never worked in the Respondent department for 240 days continuously in any calendar year. Further, MW1 states that Respondent denies the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has not given any opportunity for continuing him in the employment or regularising his services or paying retrenchment compensation. As MW1 states that Petitioner has never worked continuously nor fulfilled any mandatory provisions laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, MW1 states that contention of the Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any details and letters of appointment and payment of wages and no evidence placed, showing continuous working with the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8 hours per working day which is essential for the purpose of any industrial dispute. Further, MW1 states that on enquiry, it was found that these certificates were fabricated with the office seals and obtained them by making physical threats by the Petitioner. MW1 also stated that there is a Ban in the department and no casual worker can be engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than 100 days depending on the requirement in the department or project sites. Further, the said ban is applicable to project sites also. The Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily wages for the works rendered by him on project site. Petitioner never worked with the department continuously for more than 240 days. Respondent did not3771 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] violated any of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. MW1 has also exhibited documents, Ex. M1 which is the circular dated 30.3.1985 wherein the engagement of casual labour has been prohibited in the Respondent office. Similarly, Ex.M2, M3 and M4 are also office memorandums pertaining to for ban on engagement of casual labour in the Respondent management. This witness MW1 was also cross examined by the Counsel for Petitioner but nothing has been elicited to contradict the testimony of the MW1 which could make the statement of MW1 unbelievable. Petitioner failed to produce any iota of reliable evidence to prove his claim that he has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his alleged termination i.e., 31.12.2012. 13. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner has failed to prove his averment of claim statement that he has been terminated from service by the Respondent vide order dated 31.12.2012 in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F. This point is answered accordingly. 14 . Point No.II:- In view of the fore gone discussion, law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and findings arrived at Point No.I, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The claim petition of the petitioner is unfounded hence liable to be dismissed. Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly. ORDER In view of the finding given in the determination of Points No. I and II as above, the action of the Respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner Sri Ch. Krishnaiah vide oral order dated 31.12.2012 is held just and legal. The claim petition of the petitioner is dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 8th day of August, 2024. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri Ch. Krishnaiah MW1: Sri N.V. Sree Rama Murthy Documents marked for the Petitioner EX.W1: Service certificate dt.15.10.2009 Ex.W2: Service certificate dt.30.10.2009 Ex.W3: Service Certificate dt.20.10.2012 Ex.W4: Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt. 26.4.2008 Ex.W5: Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt.28.4.2008 Ex.W6: Photostat copy of representation dt. 22.1.2013 of Petitioner to Respondent. Ex.W7: Office copy of lr. from D.E., (Admn, BSNL, Nalgonda to G.M.,, BSNL dt. 26.7.2013 /17.7.2013reg. disengagement of Petitioner & ors. Ex.W8: Certificate issued by ALC(C) dt.26.7.2013 to the Petitioner. Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.M1: Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.30.3.1985 Ex.M2: Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.22.6.1988 Ex.M3: Photostat copy of order, reg. disengaging mazdoors those who have entered after cut-off date dt.12.2.1999 Ex.M4: Photostat copy of ban orders on the engagement of casual labourers dt.15.6.1999 नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस् त, 2024 का.आ. 1680.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबिं क, िरू सचं ार णजला, भारत संचार णनगम णलणमटेड, नलगोंडा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री कोठा3772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] हलगं यै ा, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि म ें णनर्िष्टि केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हिै राबाि पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 153/2013) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ैप्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-42025/07/2024-160-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024 S.O. 1680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C. No. 153/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court– Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, Telecom Dist, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nalgonda, and Shri Kotha Lingaiah, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024. [No. L-42025/07/2024-160-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar Presiding Officer Dated the 9th day of August, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.153/2013 Between: Sri Kotha Lingaiah, S/o Muttaiah, R/o Khudhavanpur village, Pagidimarri Post, Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. .. ….Petitioner AND The General Manager, Telecom Dist, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nalgonda – 508 001. … .Respondent Appearances: For the Petitioner : Sri B.S.R. Murhty, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate AWARD Sri Kotha Lingaiah who worked as Casual Mazdoor (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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited seeking for reinstatement into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit. 2. The brief facts as averred in the claim statement filed by the Petitioner are as follows:- The Petitioner submitted that he was a casual mazdoor in the Respondent organization BSNL which is the Government of India company and its functions are mainly laying the cables, line works, phone repairing, cable digging, cable joints etc.. It is submitted that the Respondent was engaging the persons for the above works in the telephone exchanges from time to time for their needs and the said persons on engagement will be either permanently3773 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] or temporarily or casually. Further, it is submitted that normally the persons who are recruited will be disengaged after completing the above works for some days. But some persons engaged casually will be continued years together according to the needs of the officers of BSNL. Out of those persons, the Petitioner is one of them and he was engaged as casual mazdoor continuously for years together. It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged in January 1997 by the SDOT, Ramagiri Telephone Exchange and Vivekananda Telephone Exchange, Nalgonda District for cable laying work, telephone repairs, cable joints, cable digging, line works, etc. before setting up of BSNL and taking into continuous service of the Petitioner into consideration, he was engaged continuously from 1.10.2000. After setting up of BSNL as Government Company from 1.10.2000 with transfer of telecommunication services by the Department of Telecommunications vide resolutions dated 24.1.2001 effective from 1.10.2000 and published in the Gazette on 17.3.2001. It is submitted that the Petitioner was continued as casual mazdoor from 1.10.2000 till 31.12.2012, on which day he was orally terminated. It is submitted that he was engaged for about 15 years without break in the Prakasam Bazar telephone exchange. Later, he was reengaged from 17.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 orally. It is submitted that he was engaged in January 1997 under the control of linemen till 2005. The S.D.O.T. was paying Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that from 2006 to 2012, he was engaged and continued in the same exchange and got payment of Rs. 4000/- in Cash. Further, it is submitted that from 17 .4.2013 to 20.6.2013, he was reengaged and continued in the same exchange. It is submitted that Petitioner was orally terminated on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation, though he was engaged continuously from January 1997 to 31.12.2012. It is submitted that the action of the Respondent in not continuing, not regularising and terminating the Petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that he along with other mazdoors, had made representations to the Respondent dated 26.4.2008 and 28.4.2008. It is submitted that to his representation dated 8.08.2011, the Respondent wrote a letter to Petitioner on 29.10.2011 directing to submit relevant documents like appointment order, place of engagement, monthly payment details etc.. Petitioner submitted a letter on 22.1.2013 to the Respondent in reply. Further, it is submitted that though he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) the matter was not settled in the conciliation. It is submitted that Petitioner is a poor Workman belonging to BC ‘D’ community and is having wife and three children. He has no other alternative income except salary from the BSNL. Therefore, prayed to set aside the oral termination order dated 31.12.2012 directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with back wages. 3. Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:- It is submitted that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is a Government of India Enterprise formed in the year 2000. It is further submitted that Department of Telecommunications have imposed total ban on engagement of casual labour in the telecom circles/ districts vide D.O.T., New Delhi letter No.270/ 6/84- STN dated 30.3.1985. This ban was extended to project circles vide DOT New Delhi letter dated 22.6.1988 thereby leaving no scope for engagement of any casual labour thereafter in any form. It is submitted that Department of Telecommunications vide letter dated 12.2.1999 imposed total ban on the engagement of any casual labour by the Departmental Officers and withdrawn all the powers through Departmental officers by amending the provisions in P&T Manual, Volume-X except permitting engagement in contingencies for a period not exceeding 60 days. This policy was further affirmed in letter dated 15.6.1999 with permission to engage casual labour in exigencies for a period of not less than 100 days. It is submitted that the assertion of the above casual labour to the effect that they have been engaged as such by the Junior Telecom Officer for the periods as mentioned by them in the claim statement is against the existing policy in the Respondent department are false and denied. It is submitted that Respondent is engaging the persons for the workshop of laying the cables, Line works, phone repairing, cable digging, cable joints, etc., in the telephone exchanges from time to time for their needs on project sites purely on temporary basis. It is further submitted that normally the workers who were engaged will be disengaged after completing the project work. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that he was orally terminated on 31/12/2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged continuously from January, 1997 to 31.12.2012 without any breaks before and after setting up of BSNL and he has worked for more than 15 years in the same exchange and he is entitled to continue in the service centre regularization and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Further, it is submitted that the Petitioner never worked in the Respondent department for 240 man days continuously in calendar year. It is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any details and letters of appointment and payment of wages no evidence is placed showing his continuous working with the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8 hours in a working day which is essential for the purpose of any industrial dispute. It is submitted that it is a fact that there is a ban in the department and no casual worker is engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than 100 days depending on the requirement in the department for project sites. It is further submitted that the said ban is applicable to project sites also. It is submitted that the Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily wages for the worker endeared by him on project site. He never worked with the department continuously for more than 240 days. Hence, there is no violation of statutory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. As such, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, that is reinstatement of like regularization with etcetera. 4. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues emerge for determination in this case:- I. Whether the action of the Respondent management- BSNL vide oral Order dated 31st December, 2012, in3774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] terminating the services of the Petitioner in contravention of provisions of Section 25 F of ID Act is legal and justified? II. To what relief if any, the workman is entitled for? 5. During the hearing, the Workman has testified himself as a WW1 and also filed documents in evidence which has been exhibited in his evidence as Ex.W1 to Ex.W5. On the other hand, Respondent has testified in oral evidence as MW1 and the witness has also proved documents Ex.M1 to Ex.M4 in support of his contentions. 6. Heard the Learned Counsels for both the parties. Perused the record. Findings:- 7. Point No.I:- WW1 in his chief affidavit has testified that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the SDOT Ramagiri Telephone Exchange and Vivekananda Telephone Exchange, Nalgonda district for cable laying work, telephone repairs, cable joints, cable digging, line works, etc., before setting up of BSNL and taking into consideration of his services, he was engaged continuously from 1.10.2000 onwards in the same exchange, even after setting up of BSNL which is a government company. Further, WW1 states that he was continued as a casual mazdoor for said works in the same exchange upto 31.12.2012 without any break and he was orally terminated vide order dated 31.12.2012. Further, witness testifies that he was engaged by the department for about 15 years without any break and he was also reengaged from 20.4.2013 to 20.6.2013 and on which day he was again orally terminated. Further, WW1 states that he was orally terminated vide order dated 31.12.2012 without any notice or paid any retrenchment compensation. He was engaged continuously from 1997 to 31.12.2012 without any break for more than 15 years. Witness also states that he worked for more than 240 days in a year and he is entitled for regularization on par with the permanent employees either in continuing him in employment or regularising his services or paying retrenchment compensation. Hence, the action of the Respondent in not considering him for regularization and terminating services is illegal. 8. Further, in support of his plea, Petitioner Workman has also filed documents Ex.W1 to W5. Undisputedly, Petitioner has not filed any appointment letter said to be issued by the Respondent in his name or any pay slip as a proof of his appointment or payment of wages for the alleged period of his employment with the Respondent. Petitioner has not filed any attendance register as a proof of his employment in Respondent office for alleged period. Section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 contains the provision of retrenchment extracted as below:- Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until— (a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings. Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,-- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; 9. It is settled law that burden of proof to prove the fact that workman has worked for 240 days continuously in the Respondent corporation in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination lies upon the3775 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman. In this context Hon’ble Apex Court have laid down the decisions which are mentioned as below:- a. In the case of GM., BSNL and others V. Mahesh Chand AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1328, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.” b. In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani AIR 2002 SC page 1147, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “the onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year – In absence of proof of receipt of salary or wages record of appointment, filing of an affidavit by workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. c. In the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 the Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “ It was for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months’ period.” d. In the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S Mills Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan and another AIR 2005 SC 4065, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held, “It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his termination.” 10. In order to discharge onus of proof, of the fact that Petitioner Workman has worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year just preceding from his date of termination. Petitioner has not filed any document i.e., attendance register, pay slip or any appointment letter. So far as documents that has been filed by the Petitioner in support of his case are, Ex.W1 to W5. But Petitioner fails to discharge his onus regarding proof of these documents. The documents Ex.W1 to Ex.W3 are his representations, Ex.W4 and Ex.W5 does not pertain to the fact of the working days of the Petitioner. 11. WW1 was cross examined by the Respondent Counsel and in his cross examination witness stated that, he joined BSNL in the year 1997. At the time of his initial appointment, no appointment order was issued to him by Mr. Saraiah. He studied up to 10th class and but he do not remember when he was passed, but in the year 2013 he cleared all his papers. He stated that he has worked under different JTOs. He has not filed any document to show that he has worked for 240 days continuously in a year. Thus, from the aforesaid statement of WW1, the claim of the Petitioner that he has worked continuously for 240 days in Respondent organization just preceding from the date of his oral termination, is not established. 12. On the other hand, Respondent has examined MW1 in support of the contention of the counter. MW1 has stated in his chief affidavit that the claim of the Petitioner is denied by the Respondent and the plea of the Petitioner that he was engaged in January, 1997 by the Respondent and have done continuous service from 1.10.2000 is false and denied. Further MW1 states that Respondent denied statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged in January 1997 and was paid amount of Rs.1000/- in cash to the Petitioner. Further, MW1 states that the averment of claim statement of the Petitioner that he was engaged from 2006 to 2009 continuously with the same exchange is also denied. Further, MW1 states that the averment of the claim statement is denied by the Respondent that the Petitioner was orally terminated on 31.12.2012 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and he was engaged from January 1997 to 31.12.2012. Further, MW1 states that it is false and denied that the Petitioner has worked for more than 15 years and he is entitled to continue in the service and for regularization. MW1 states the Petitioner never worked in the Respondent department for 240 days continuously in any calendar year. Further, MW1 states that Respondent denies the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has not given any opportunity for continuing him in the employment or regularising his services or paying retrenchment compensation. As MW1 states that Petitioner has never worked continuously nor fulfilled any mandatory provisions laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, MW1 states that contention of the Petitioner with respect to his engagement is without any details and letters of appointment and payment of wages and no evidence placed, showing continuous working with the department for more than 240 days and also worked for 8 hours per working day which is essential for the purpose of any industrial dispute. Further, MW1 states that on enquiry, it was found that these certificates were fabricated with the office seals and obtained them by making physical threats by the Petitioner. MW1 also stated that there is a Ban in the department and no casual worker can be engaged in the department for 60 man days or not more than 100 days depending on the requirement in the department or project sites. Further, the said ban is applicable to project sites also. The Petitioner is engaged on purely temporary basis and paid daily wages for the works rendered by him on3776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] project site. Petitioner never worked with the department continuously for more than 240 days. Respondent did not violated any of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. MW1 has also exhibited documents, Ex. M1 which is the circular dated 30.3.1985 wherein the engagement of casual labour has been prohibited in the Respondent office. Similarly, Ex.M2, M3 and M4 are also office memorandums pertaining to for ban on engagement of casual labour in the Respondent management. This witness MW1 was also cross examined by the Counsel for Petitioner but nothing has been elicited to contradict the testimony of the MW1 which could make the statement of MW1 unbelievable. Petitioner failed to produce any iota of reliable evidence to prove his claim that he has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date of his alleged termination i.e., 31.12.2012. 13. Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner has failed to prove his averment of claim statement that he has been terminated from service by the Respondent vide order dated 31.12.2012 in contravention of the provision of Section 25 F. This point is answered accordingly. 14 . Point No.II:- In view of the fore gone discussion, law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and findings arrived at Point No.I, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The claim petition of the petitioner is unfounded hence liable to be dismissed. Thus, Point No.III is answered accordingly. ORDER In view of the finding given in the determination of Points No. I and II as above, the action of the Respondent management in terminating the services of the petitioner Sri Kotha Lingaiah vide oral order dated 31.12.2012 is held just and legal. The claim petition of the petitioner is dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 9th day of August, 2024. IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent WW1: Sri Kotha Lingaiah MW1: Sri N.V. Sree Rama Murthy Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1: Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt. 26.4.2008 Ex.W2: Photostat copy of representation to Respondent dt.28.4.2008 Ex.W3: Photostat copy of representation dt. 22.1.2013 of Petitioner to Respondent. Ex.W4: Office copy of lr. from D.E., (Admn, BSNL, Nalgonda to G.M.,, BSNL dt. 26.7.2013 /17.7.2013reg. disengagement of Petitioner & ors. Ex.W5: Certificate issued by ALC(C) dt.26.7.2013 to the Petitioner. Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.M1: Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.30.3.1985 Ex.M2: Photostat copy of ban orders not to engage casual labour dt.22.6.1988 Ex.M3: Photostat copy of order, reg. disengaging mazdoors those who have entered after cut-off date dt.12.2.1999 Ex.M4: Photostat copy of ban orders on the engagement of casual labourers dt.15.6.1999 नई दिल्ली, 28.अगस् त 2024 का.आ. 1681.—औद्योणगक णििाि अणिणनयम, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार मसे स ि गोकुल इंजीणनयररंग एसोणसएट्स, णिशाखापत्तनम; महाप्रबिं क, मसे स ि हहिं स्ु तान णशपयाडि णलणमटेड, गािं ीग्राम (पीओ),णिशाखापत्तनम, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध णनयोजकों और श्री ज.ेए. सत्यम, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में णनर्िष्टि3777 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योणगक अणिकरि- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय- हिै राबाि पंचाट(संिभि संख्या L.C. 12/2017) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दिखाया गया ह,ैप्रकाणशत करती ह ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27/08/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ था l [स.ं एल-14011/130/2016-आईआर(डीय)ू ] दिलीप कुमार, अिर सणचि New Delhi, the 28th August, 2024 S.O. 1681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. L.C. No. 12/2017) 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 Gokul Engineering Associates, Vishakapatnam ;The General Manager, M/s Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Gandhigram (PO), Vishakapatnam, and The General Secretary, Shipyard Contract Labour Union (CITU), Venkannapalem, Malkapuram, Vishakapatnam, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 27/08/2024. [No. L-14011/130/2016-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of August, 2024 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 12/2017 Between: The General Secretary, Shipyard Contract Labour Union (CITU) CITU Office, Door No. 61-4-19/A, Venkannapalem, Malkapuram, Vishakapatnam-530011. .. ….Petitioner AND 1. M/s Gokul Engineering Associates, HSL Commercial Complex, Scindia New Colony, Gandhigram (PO) Vishakapatnam-530005. 2. The General Manager, M/s Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Gandhigram (PO) Vishakapatnam-530005. … Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent: Shri C.H Ravi, Advocate of R1 Shri Saibaba & Srinivas, Advocate of R23778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 31, 2024/BHADRA 9, 1946 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-14011/30/2016 (IR(DU)) dated 06/04/2017 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is, SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of M/s Gokul Engineering Associates, Contractor of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri B. Prabhakar Rao & Sri G. Sanjeeva Rao without complying section 25 (F) of ID Act, 1947 is legal and or justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?’ The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 12/2017 and notices were issued to the parties concerned. 2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Petitioner did not file any claim statement and documents despite sufficient opportunity extended to him. It seems he don’t want to prosecute his case. Therefore, in absence of any claim statement a ‘No-Claim’ award is passed. Award is passed accordingly. Transmit. Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 5th day of July, 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 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.