This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 xxxGIDHxxx सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-29 112021-231458 xxxGIDExxx CG-DL-W-29112021-231458 प्राजिकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्त ाजिक WEEKLY स.ं 43] नई दिल्ल ी, नवम्ब र 14—नवम्ब र 20, 2021 िजनवार/ कार्तकि 23— कार्तकि 29, 1943 No. 43] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 14—NOVEMBER 20, 2021, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 23– KARTIKA 29, 1943 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) सचं ार मत्रं ालय (डाक विभाग) नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्ट् त, 2021 का.आ. 795.—केंद्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के वलए प्रयोग) वनयम 1976 (यथा संशोवित 1987) के वनयम 10 के उपवनयम (4) के अनुसरण म,ें डाक विभाग के जनम्नवलवित अिीनस्ट् कायाालय वजसके 80 प्रवतशत स े अविक अविकाररयों/कमाचाररयों न े विन् िी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर वलया ि,ै को एतदद्वारा अविसूवचत करती ि:ै- पोस्टमास्टर जनरल का कायाालय, उत्तर कनााटक क्षत्रे , िारिाड़ - 580001 [फा. स.ं ई-11017-1/2021-रा.भा.] डॉ. अमरप्रीत दग्ु गल, उप मिावनदेशक (ईएमएम/राजभाषा) 6405 GI/2021 (2049)2050 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS (Department of Posts) New Delhi, the 31st August, 2021 S.O. 795.—In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:- O/o The Post Master General, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad- 580001 [F. No. E-11017-1/2021-OL] Dr. AMARPREET DUGGAL, Dy. Director General (EMM/ OL) नई दिल्ली, 3 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 796.—केंद्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के वलए प्रयोग) वनयम 1976 (यथा संशोवित 1987) के वनयम 10 के उप वनयम (4) के अनुसरण म,ें डाक विभाग के जनम्नवलवित अिीनस्ट् कायाालय वजसके 80 प्रवतशत से अविक अविकाररयों/ कमाचाररयों न े विन् िी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर वलया ि,ै को एतदद्वारा अविसूवचत करती ि:ै- मिाप्रबंिक (डाक लेिा एि ंवित्त) का कायाालय, पविम बंगाल डाक सकाल, कोलकाता – 700012 [फा. स.ं ई-11017-1/2021-रा.भा.] डॉ. अमरप्रीत दग्ु गल, उप मिावनदेशक (ईएमएम/राजभाषा) New Delhi, the 3rd November, 2021 S.O. 796.—In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:- O/o The General Manager (Postal Accounts & Finance), West Bengal Postal Circle, Kolkata- 700012. [F. No. E-11017-1/2021-OL] Dr. AMARPREET DUGGAL, Dy. Director General (EMM/ OL) को ला मत्रं ाल नई दिल्ली, 15 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 797.—केन् द्री सरकार को ि प्रतीत िोता ि जदक, इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची म ेंउजल्लज त ृररक्षेत्र की भूजम में से को ला अजभप्राप् त दकए िाने की संभावना ि;ज अत:, उक्त अजिसूचना में व्णिंतत क्षेत्र में अंतर्वि्‍ ्‍ ोंरे रे ांक सं्‍ ा सी-I(ई)/III/िेिेआर/0821/976, तारी 18 अगस्ट्त, 2021 का जनरीक्षणिं, वेस्ट् नि कोलफील्् स जलजम ेड (रािस्ट् व जवभाग),कोल इस्ट् े , जसजवल लाईन्स , नागृुर - 440 001 (मिारा्‍र ) के का ािल म ें ा म्‍ु मिाप्रबंिक ( ोि प्रभाग), केन् द्री ान ोिना एण्ड जडिाइन संस्ट् ान जलजम ेड, गोंडवाना ृॅलेस, कांके रोड, रांची - 834 001 के का ािल में ा को ला ननं त्रक, 1,[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2051 काउंजसल िाउस स्ट् री , कोलकाता - 700 001 के का ािल में ा जिला कलक् र, जिला चंद्रृुर (मिारा्‍र ) के का ािल में दक ा िा सकता ि ज; अत: अब केन् द्री सरकार, को ला िारक क्षेत्र (अििन और जवकास) अजिजन म, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके ृश् चातउ उक्त अजिजन म किा ग ा ि)ज की िारा 4 की उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित् त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, उस भूजम में को ल ेका ृूवेक्षणिं करने के अृने आि की सूचना िेती ि ज; उक्त अनुसूची में उजल्लज त भूजम में जितबद्ध कोई ्‍ जक्त - (i) उक्त अजिसूचना की िारा 4 की उृ-िारा (3) के अिीन की ग ी दकसी का िवािी से हुई ा िोन े वाली संभाजवत दकसी क्षजत के जलए अजिजन म की िारा 6 के अिीन प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा ; अ वा (ii) उक्त अजिजन म की िारा (13) की उृ-िारा (1) के अिीन ृवू ेक्षणिं अनुज्ञजप् त ों के प्रभाविीन िोन े के संबंि में ा उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 13 की उृ-िारा (4) के अिीन नन ृट्टे प्रभाविीन िोने के जलए प्रजतकर का िावा कर सकेगा और उसे उक्त अजिन म की िारा 13 की उृिारा (1) के ंड (i) से ंड (iv) में जवजनर्ि्‍ि मिों की बाबतउ उृगत ्‍ को उृिर्िित करन े के जलए ृूववोकक्त भूजम से संबंजित सभी मानजचत्रों, चा ों और अन् िस्ट् तावेिों को ृररित् त कर सकेगा, इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र म ें प्रकािन की तारी से न्‍ बे दिन के भीतर, क्षत्रे ी मिाप्रबंिक, वेस्ट् नि कोलफील् ्स जलजम ेड, बल् लारृुर क्षेत्र ा मु्‍ प्रबंिक अ वा जवभागाध् क्ष, वेस्ट् नि कोलफील् ्स जलजम ेड, भजू म और रािस्ट् व जवभाग, कोल ईस्ट् े , जसजवल लाईन् स, नागृुर - 440 001 (मिारा्‍र ) को भेि सकेगा । अनुसूची गौरी ृवनी एक्सृेन्िन पृनकास्ट् माईन बल् लारृरु क्षेत्र जिला चंद्रृुर (मिारा्‍र ) [ सी-I(ई)/III/िेिेआर/0821/976, तारी 18 अगस्ट्त, 2021] भाग - I क्रम ग्राम का नाम ृ वारी तिसील जिला भूजम का वणिंिन कुल र प् ृजणिं ां सर्किल स.ं सं्‍ ा अजभिषजत सरकारी वन 1 सा री - रािुरा चंद्रृुर 10.17 0.00 0.00 10.17 भाग कुल :- 10.17 0.00 0.00 10.17 भाग – II क्रम ग्राम का ृ वारी तिसील जिला भूजम का वणिंिन कुल र प् ृजणिं ा ं नाम सर्किल स.ं ( िक्े े र में ) सं्‍ ा अजभिषजत सरकारी वन2052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 ृोवनी - रािुरा चंद्रृुर 47.15 5.69 0.00 52.84 भाग कुल : 47.15 5.69 0.00 52.84 भाग – III क्रम ग्राम का ृ वारी तिसील जिला भूजम का वणिंिन कुल र प् ृजणिं ा ं नाम सर्किल स.ं (िक्े े र म ें) सं्‍ ा अजभिषजत सरकारी वन 1 ृोवनी - रािुरा चंद्रृुर 3.57 0.00 0.00 3.57 भाग कुल :- 3.57 0.00 0.00 3.57 भाग – IV क्रम ग्राम का ृ वारी तिसील जिला भूजम का वणिंिन कुल र प्ृजणिं ा ं नाम सर्किल स.ं (िक्े े र म ें) सं्‍ ा अजभिषजत सरकारी वन 1 सा री - रािुरा चंद्रृुर 55.67 0.00 0.00 55.67 भाग कुल :- 55.67 0.00 0.00 55.67 भाग – V क्रम ग्राम का नाम ृ वारी तिसील जिला भूजम का वणिंिन कुल र प् ृजणिं ा ं सर्किल स.ं ( िक्े े र में ) सं्‍ ा अजभिषजत सरकारी वन 1 नचंचोली ुि ि - रािुरा चंद्रृुर 104.08 3.55 0.00 107.63 भाग कुल :- 104.08 3.55 0.00 107.63 भाग – VI क्रम ग्राम का नाम ृ वारी तिसील जिला भूजम का वणिंिन कुल र प् ृजणिं ा ं सर्किल स.ं ( िक्े े र में ) सं्‍ ा अजभिषजत सरकारी वन[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2053 1 गोवरी - रािुरा चंद्रृुर 140.95 4.18 0.00 145.13 भाग कुल :- 140.95 4.18 0.00 145.13 - कुल क्षेत्र (भाग – I + भाग – II + भाग – III + भाग – IV + भाग – V + भाग – VI) = 375.01 िक्े र (लगभग) ा 926.65 एकड़ (लगभग) भाग I ग्राम सा री के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प् ला सं्‍ ांक : 81/1, 81/2, 81/3, 82/1, 82/2, 83, 84, और 85. भाग II ग्राम ृवनी के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प् ला सं्‍ ाकं : 1/1/अ , 1/1/ब , 1/2/अ , 1/2/ब , 2, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 106, 107, 108/1, 108/2, 109/1, 109/2, 200/1, 200/2, 201, 202, 203, 205/1, 205/2, 206/1, 206/2, 207/1, 207/2, 208/1, 208/2, 209, 210/1, 210/2, 211/1, 211/2. सरकारी भूजम: 204, गाव ान (आबािी ). भाग III ग्राम ृवनी के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प् ला सं्‍ ाकं : 145/1, 145/2, 146/1, 146/2. भाग IV ग्राम सा री के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प् ला सं्‍ ांक: 226/1, 226/2, 227/1, 227/2, 230/1, 230/2, 231, 232, 233/1, 234, 235/1, 235/2, 235/3, 236/1, 236/2, 236/3, 237/1, 237/2, 238, 239/1, 239/2, 239/3, 239/4, 239/5, 239/6, 239/7, 240/1, 240/2, 241/1, 241/2, 241/3, 241/4, 242/1/अ, 242/1/ब, 242/2/अ, 242/2/ब, 243/1, 243/2, 243/3, 244, 245/1, 245/2, 245/3, 247/1/अ, 247/1/ब, 247/2, 247/3, 248/1, 248/2, 249/1, 249/2, 249/3, 249/4, 275/1, 275/2, 276/1, 276/2, 276/3. भाग V ग्राम नचंचोली ुि िके अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प् ला सं्‍ ाकं : 15/1, 15/2, 15/3, 16/1, 16/2/अ, 16/2/ब, 17/1, 17/2, 17/3, 17/4, 18/1, 18/2, 18/3, 18/4, 18/5, 20/1, 20/2/अ, 20/2/ब, 20/3, 20/4, 23/1/1, 23/1/2, 23/2, 24/1/अ, 24/1/ब, 24/2, 25/1, 25/2, 26/1, 26/2, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 29/1, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, 31/1, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4, 31/5, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49/1, 49/2/अ, 49/2/ब, 49/3, 50/1, 50/1/अ, 50/2, 50/3, 51/1, 51/2, 52/1, 52/2, 53/1, 53/2, 54/1, 54/2, 55, 56, 57/1, 57/2, 58/1, 58/2, 59/1/अ, 59/1/ब, 59/2/क, 59/2/ड, 60/1, 60/2, 61, 62, 63, 64/1, 64/2, 65, 66, 67/1/अ, 67/1/ब, 67/3, 68/1, 68/2, 69/1/अ, 69/1/क, 69/1/ब, 69/2, 69/3, 69/4, 69/5, 82/1, 82/2, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3, 83/4, 84/1, 84/2, 310.2054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] सरकारी भूजम :- 19, 27 ृवनी नाला भाग, नचंचोली नाला भाग. भाग VI ग्राम गोवरी के अजिसूजचत क्षेत्र के प् ला सं्‍ ाकं : 1,2,3,595/1, 595/2, 595/3, 595/4, 596, 597, 598/1, 598/2, 599/1, 599/2, 600, 601/1, 601/2, 605/1/अ/1, 605/1/अ/2, 605/1/ब, 605/2/अ, 605/2/क, 610, 611/1, 611/2, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616/1, 616/2, 617/1, 617/2, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624/1, 624/2, 625, 626/1, 626/2, 626/3, 626/4, 626/5, 626/6, 626/7, 641/1 (भाग), 641/2/अ/(भाग), 646/1, 647, 648/1, 648/2, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656/1, 656/2, 656/3, 657/1/अ, 657/2, 658/1, 658/2, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664/1, 664/2, 665, 666, 667, 668/1, 668/2, 669/1, 669/2, 670/1, 670/2, 671/1, 671/2, 672/1, 672/2/अ, 672/2/क, 672/2/ड, 672/2/ब, 672/3/अ, 672/3/क, 672/3/ब, 672/4/अ, 672/4/क, 672/4/ब, 673/1, 673/2, 674/1, 674/2, 675/1/अ, 675/1/क, 675/1/ब, 675/2, 676/1, 676/2, 676/3, 677/1, 677/2, 718, 721/1, 721/2, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 730, 731, 732. सरकारी भूजम : 646/2, 713, 714, 717, 722 नाला, रोड. सीमा – वणिंनि : भाग - । क – : रे ा नबंि ु ‘क’ मौिा सा री के सरा क्रमांक 81 के ृास स े प्रारंभ िोती ि ज अ वा सरा सं्‍ ा 80 की ृूव ि म ें अजिग्रिीत भूजम की बाह्य सीमा और सरा क्रमांक 81, 82,83,84, 85 के उत्तरी सीमा को लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम -सा री एवं ृवनी के सजम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के नबंि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। – ग : रे ा जबन् ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ ’ स े आरंभ िोती ि ज और सरा क्रमांक 85 के ृूवी सीमा स े लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम सा री और ृवनी के सजम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के नबंि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ग’ म ें जमलती ि ज। ग - घ : रे ा जबन् ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ग’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज ( ृूवि म ें अजिग्रिीत भजू म) सरा क्रमांक 86 और 87 के बाह्य सीमा अ वा उत्तरी सीमा सरा क्रमांक 85,84,83,82 और 81 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ृूवि म ें अजिग्रिीत सरा सं्‍ ा 80 की बाह्य सीमा गुिरती ि ज और जबन्ि ु‘घ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। घ – क : रे ा जबन् ि ु ‘घ’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज ( ृूवि म ें अजिग्रजित भूजम ) सरा 80 की ृूवी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 81 की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा जबन्ि ु ‘क’ मौज़ा सा री ृर जमलती ि ज। भाग - ।। ड – च : रे ा सा री नाल े के ृास के जबन्ि ु ‘ड’ (मौज़ा सा री एव ं ृवनी की सजम्मजलत सीमा रे ा ) से प्रारम्भ िोती ि ज । मौज़ा ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 207,208,210,211, 1 एवं 3 की उत्तरी सीमा अ वा सा री नाले की िजक्षणिंी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा सरा क्रमांक 3 मौज़ा ृवनी के ृास जबन्ि ु‘च’ जमलती ि ज।[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2055 च – छ : रे ा जबन् ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘च’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 3,2,106,107 और 109 के ृूवी सीमा अ वा ृवनी नाल े की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम ृवनी की नाल े के ृास के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘छ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। छ – ि : रे ा जबन् ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘छ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज मौज़ा ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 109,108,203,202,201 एवं 200 के िजक्षणिंी-ृजिम सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम ृवनी एव ंसा री की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ि’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ि – ड. : रे ा जबन् ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि’ स े आरंभ िोती ि,ज मौज़ा ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 200, 205 एवं 207 की ृजिमी सीमा अ वा सा री नाले के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा ृवनी एवं सा री के सजम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ड.’ ृर जमलती ि ज। भाग - ।।। झ - ञ रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘झ’ ग्राम ृवनी से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ृूवि में अजिग्रिीत सरा क्रमांक 147 िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 146 की ृूवी सीमा स े लगकर गुिरती ि ज ृवनी नाला (भाग) के ृास के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ञ ‘ ृर जमलती ि ज। ञ - : रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ञ' से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ृवनी नाला भाग की ृजिमी सीमा अ वा (अजिग्रिीत दकए िाने वाल)े सरा क्रमांक 146 एवं 145 की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज, ृवनी नाला भाग को ृजिम स े ृूवि ृार कर मौज़ा ृवनी एवं नचंचोली के सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा “ ” ृर जमलती ि ज। – : रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ ’ स े प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ृवनी नाल े का ृवू ि से उत्तरी दििा म ें ृर कर ग्राम ृवनी नचंचोली एवं सा री के सरा सं्‍ ा ‘28 भाग’ की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। – ड : रे ा जबन्ि ु ‘ ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम ृवनी के सरा क्रमाकं 145 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा ग्राम सा री सरा क्रमांक 241 और 240 की उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज एव ं ग्राम ृवनी एवं सा री के सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ड’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ड - ढ : रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ड’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 145 और 146भाग की ृजिमी सीमा अ वा ग्राम – सा री के सरा क्रमांक 239भाग की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा ृवनी एवं सा री की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ढ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ढ – णिं रे ा जबन्ि ु ‘ढ ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि ज और ग्राम ृवनी और सा री की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘णिं’ ृर जमलती ि ज। णिं – झ रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘णिं’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि जत ा ग्राम ृवनी के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘झ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। भाग – IV ि – ि रे ा नबंि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि’ ग्राम सा री के सरा क्रमांक 276, 275, 249 से प्रारंभ िोती ि ज अ वा ृूवि में अजिग्रिीत ग्राम सा री के सरा क्रमांक 277,274,273, 272 और 252 भाग की ृवू ि सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा सं्‍ ा सा री के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ि‘ ृर जमलती ि ज।2056 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ि – न रे ा जबि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि’ से प्रारम्भ िोगी ि,ज ग्राम सा री के ृूव ि म ें अजिग्रिीत भूजम सरा क्रमांक 250 एव ं 246 की उत्तरी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 249 और 247 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा जबन्ि ुस्‍ं ा ‘न’ ृर जमलती ि ज । न – ृ रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘न’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम सा री के ( ृूवि म ें अजिग्रिीत भूजम ) सरा क्रमांक 246 की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा ग्राम सा री एवं नचंचोली की सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ृ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ृ – फ रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ृ’ स े प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम सा री के सरा क्रमांक 245 एवं 243 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा ग्राम नचंचोली की सरा क्रमांक 23,24,25 एवं 26 की उत्तरी सीमा स े लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम सा री – नचंचोली की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘फ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। फ – रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘फ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम सा री के सरा क्रमांक 243, 242 एवं 241 की ृूवी सीमा अ वा मौज़ा नचंचोली की सरा क्रमांक 28 की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा सा री, ृवनी एव ं नचंचोली की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। – ड रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम सा री के सरा क्रमांक 241 एव ं 240 की उत्तरी सीमा अ वा ग्राम – ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 145 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम ृवनी एवं स री की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ड’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ड – ढ रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ड’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम सा री के सरा क्रमांक 239 भाग के ृूवी सीमा अ वा ग्राम ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 145 एवं 146 भाग की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा सा री एवं ृवनी की सं ुक्त सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा सं्‍ ा ‘ढ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ढ-णिं-त रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ढ’ स े प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज मौज़ा सा री के सरा क्रमांक 239 भाग के उत्तरी सीमा और मौज़ा ृवनी के सरा क्रमांक 146 एवं 147 भाग की िजक्षणिंी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा जबन्ि ु ‘णिं’ से िोते हुए मौज़ा सा री एवं ृवनी की सं ुक्त सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘त’ ृर जमलती ि ज। त – रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘त’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज मौज़ा सा री के सरा क्रमांक 226 की ृूवी सीमा अ वा मौज़ा ृवनी में ृूवि में अजिग्रजित भूजम के सरा क्रमाकं 147 भाग की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा मौज़ा सा री एवं ृवनी की सं ुक्त सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। – ि रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ ’ स े प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज मौज़ा सा री के सरा क्रमांक 226, 227, 230 एवं 276 की उत्तरी सीमा अ वा ृूवि म ें अजिग्रिीत भूजम के सरा क्रमांक 225,228, 229 एव ं 216भाग की िजक्षणिंी सीमा स े लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा सा री के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि’ ृर जमलती ि ज। भाग – V ृ – ब रे ा जबन्ि ु‘ृ’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज ग्राम सा री के सरा क्रमांक 246 एवं 250 भाग की िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 310 की उत्तरी सीमा ले लगकर चलती ि ज एवं ग्राम सा री एवं नचंचोली के सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ु‘ब’ ृर जमलती ि ज।[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2057 ब – भ रे ा ग्राम नचंचोली की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ब’ से आरंभ िोती ि,जमौज़ा नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 310 की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती त ा मौज़ा नचंचोली के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘भ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। भ – म रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘भ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 310 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 311 की उत्तरी से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा नचंचोली के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘म’ ृर जमलती ि ज। म – रे ा जबन्ि ु‘म’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 311 और 312 की ृूवी सीमा सरा क्रमांक 22 की उत्तरी और ृूवी सीमा, सरा क्रमांक 23भाग की ृजिमी सीमा िोकर गुिरती ि जत ा ग्राम नचंचोली के ृवनी नाला के जबन्ि ु‘ ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। – क1 रे ा जबन्ि ु ‘ ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 23 भाग, 24 भाग, 25 भाग औीर 26 भाग की बाह्य सीमा की िजक्षणिं सीमा 26 भाग स े लगकर गुिरती िज और ृवनी नाला को ृार कर, ग्राम नचंचोली के ृवनी नाले के जबन्ि ु‘क1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। क1 – 1 रे ा जबन्ि ु ‘क1’ से प्रारम्भ िोगी ि,ज ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 20 की ृजिमी सीमा, सरा क्रमांक 21 की ृूवी भाग की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गिु रती ि ज त ा मौज़ा नचंचोली के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ 1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। 1 – ग1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ 1’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 20 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 13 एवं 14 के उत्तरी सीमा, सरा क्रमांक 15 भाग की ृजिमी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 14 की ृूवी से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा नचंचोली के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ग1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ग1 – घ1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ग1’ स े प्रारम्भ िोगी ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 15 और 16 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 71 और 70 की उत्तरी सीमा, सरा क्रमांक 69 की िजक्षणिं –ृजिम-िजक्षणिं सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा नचंचोली नाल े के ृास के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘घ1’ ग्राम नचंचोली ृर जमलती ि ज। घ1 ड.1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘घ1’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज नचंचोली नाला को ृार करती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 82 एवं 83भाग के िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 81,86 और 85 की उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा मौज़ा नचंचोली एवं गोवरी की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ु ‘ड.1’ ृार जमलती ि।ज ड.1 – च1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ड.1’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 83भाग के िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा ग्राम गोवरी सरा क्रमांक 610भाग के उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम नचंचोली एव ंगौरी की सं ुक्त सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘च1’ ृर जमलती ि।ज च1 – छ1 रे ा जबन्ि ु‘च1’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज मौज़ा नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 83 और 84 के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती िज, नचंचोली नाला को ृार करती ि ज मौज़ा नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 61 की ृूवी सीमा, सरा क्रमांक 60 की ृूवी – उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज एवं ग्राम नचंचोली और गोवरी की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ु‘छ1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। छ1 – ि1 रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘छ1’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 59,46 एवं 45 भाग की ृूवी सीमा अ वा ग्राम गोवरी के सरा क्रमांक 673, 674, 675 की ृजिमी सीमा से2058 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] लगकर गुिरती ि ज और ग्राम नचंचोली एव ं गोवरी की सं क्तु सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ि1 – झ1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि1 से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 45 भाग , 44 एवं 43 की ृूवी सीमा अ वा ग्राम गोवरी के सरा क्रमांक 681भाग की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा ग्राम नचंचोली एवं गोवरी की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ु‘झ1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। झ1 – रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘झ1’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 43, 49, 50 एवं 31 की उत्तरी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 42, 38, 37 एव ं 32 भाग की िजक्षणिंी सीमा स े लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ृवनी नाल े के ृूवी सीमा से लगकर चलती ि ज एवं ग्राम नचंचोली एवं ृवनी की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ु‘ ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। – रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि ज त ा ृवनी नाला ृार करती हुई ग्राम ृवनी, नचंचोली और सा री के सजम्मलत सीमा रे ा ृर जस्ट् त जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ ’ ृर जमलती ि ज। – फ रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज त ा मौज़ा नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 28/1, 28/2, 28/3 की ृजिमी सीमा से गुिरती हुई सरा क्रमांक 27 के उत्तर ृजिमी कोने ृर जस्ट् त जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘फ’ से जमलती ि ज फ – ृ रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘फ’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज त ा ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 26/1, 25/1, 24/1/अ, 23/1/1 की उत्तरी सीमा से गुिरती हुई जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ृ’ से जमलती ि ज। भाग – VI ड.1 - ञ1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ड.1’ मौज़ा नचंचोली एवं गोवरी की सं ुक्त सीमा रे ा से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज मौज़ा गोवरी के सरा क्रमांक 610 की ृजिमी सीमा अ वा ग्राम नचंचोली के सरा क्रमांक 85 भाग की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज एवं नचंचोली एवं गोवरी की सं ुक्त सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ञ1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ञ1 - 1 रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ञ1’ से प्रारम्भ िोती ि,ज ग्राम गोवरी के सरा क्रमांक 610 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 608, 609 की उत्तरी सीमा, सरा क्रमांक 605 भाग की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा ग्राम गोवरी के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ 1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। 1 – 1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ ’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 605 को ृजिम से ृूवि दििा में ृार करती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 618, 601, 600 एव ं 595 की बाह्य सीमा अ वा सरा सं्‍ ा 603, 589भाग, 602 और 590 की उत्तर सीमा त ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ 1’ ग्राम गोवरी ृर जमलती ि ज। 1 – ड1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ 1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 595 की बाह्य में अ वा ृूवी सीमा अ वा गौरी नाला भाग की ृजिमी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम गोवरी में गोवरी नाले के ृास के जबि ु‘ड1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ड1 – ढ1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ड1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 595 की उत्तरी सीमा, 626 की ृूवी सीमा 647, 646 की ृूवी सीमा, 641 भाग की िजक्षणिंी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज एव ं जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ढ1’ मौज़ा गोवरी ृर जमलती ि ज। ढ1 – णिं1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ढ1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 641 को िजक्षणिं से उत्तर दििा में ृार करती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 727 से लगकर गुिरती ि जत ा जबन्ि ु‘णिं1’ ग्राम गोवरी ृर जमलती ि।ज[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2059 णिं1 – त1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘णिं1’ से आरंभ िोकर िजक्षणिं ृूवि सीमा सरा क्रमांक 730, सरा क्रमांक 2 िजक्षणिं ृूवि सीमा सरा सं्‍ ा 1 की िजक्षणिं सीमा के सा गिु रती ि ज और ग्राम गौरी के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘त1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। त1 – 1 रे ा जबन्ि ु ‘त1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 1,2,3,732 एवं 731 की उत्तरी अ वा बाह्य सीमा से लगकर चलती ि,ज सड़क को ृार कर जबन्ि ु‘ 1’ मौज़ा गोवरी ृर जमलती ि ज। 1 – ि1 रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ 1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज ृुव ि मे अजिग्रजित सरा क्रमांक 720 की ृूवी सीमा, सरा क्रमांक 726 की उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा सरा क्रमांक 725 की उत्तरी सीमा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ि1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ि1 – ि1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 725, 721, 718 की उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि,ज सड़क को ृवू ि से ृजिम दििा म ें ृार कर ृनु ः सरा क्रमांक 713 की उत्तरी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 715, 710 एवं 712 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा स े लगकर गुिरती ि ज एवं नचंचोली एवं ृवनी नाला के जमलन जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ि1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ि1 – न1 रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘ि1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज नचंचोली नाले को ृार करती ि ज सरा क्रमांक 678 के ृूवी सीमा अ वा बाह्य सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि जएवं नचंचोली नाले के दकनारे के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘न1’ ग्राम गोवरी ृर जमलती ि ज। न1 – ि1 रे ा जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा ‘न1’ से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 678, 679 एवं 681 की िजक्षणिंी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम गौरी – नचंचोली की सं ुक्त सीमा रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ि1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। ि1 – छ1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा “ि1” से आरंभ िोती ि,ज सरा क्रमांक 675, 674, एव ं 673 भाग की ृजिमी सीमा अ वा सरा क्रमांक 45 भाग , 46 एवं 59 की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज एवं ग्राम नचंचोली एवं गौरी के सजम्मलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा “छ1” ृर जमलती ि।ज छ1 – च1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘छ1’ से आरंभ िोती ि ज । सरा क्रमांक 60 के उत्तर ृूवि सीमा, 61 की ृवू ी सीमा नचंचोली नाल े को ृार कर सरा क्रमांक 84 एव ं 83 की ृूवी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज त ा ग्राम नचंचोली एव ंगौरी की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ुसं्‍ ा “च1” ृर जमलती ि ज। च1 – ड.1 रे ा जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘च1’ से आरंभ िोती ि।ज सरा क्रमांक 610 भाग की उत्तरी सीमा से लगकर गुिरती ि ज एवं ग्राम नचंचोली एवं गौरी की सम्मजलत सीमा रे ा के जबन्ि ु सं्‍ ा ‘ड.1’ ृर जमलती ि ज। [फा. स.ं 43015/10/2021-एलए एण्ड आईआर] राम वशरोमवण सरोज, उप सवचि MINISTRY OF COAL New Delhi, the 15th November, 2021 S.O. 797.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto; And whereas, the plan bearing number C-I(E)/III/JJR/0821/976, dated the 18th August, 2021 containing details of the areas of land described in the Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur– 440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited , Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi – 834 001 or at the2060 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata – 700 001 or at the office of the District Collector, District - Chandrapur (Maharashtra); Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in lands described in the aforesaid Schedule; Any person interested in the land described in the afore mentioned Schedules may - (i) claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the thereof ; or (i) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, to the Office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Ballarpur Area, Post Sasti, Tahsil Rajura, District - Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or Chief Manager or Head of Department (Land and Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Land and Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification. SCHEDULE Gauri Pouni Expansion Opencast Mine Ballarpur Area District -Chandrapur (Maharashtra) [Plan bearing number C-I(E)/III/JJR/0821/976, dated the 18th August, 2021] Part – I Serial Village Patwari Tahsil District Description of land Total Rema- number Circle ( in hectares ) rks Number Tenancy Govt. Forest 1 Sakhari - Rajura Chandrapur 10.17 0.00 0.00 10.17 Part Total : 10.17 0.00 0.00 10.17 Part - II Serial Village Patwari Tahsil District Description of land Total Rema- number Circle ( in hectares ) rks Number Tenancy Govt. Forest 1 Pauni - Rajura Chandrapur 47.15 5.69 0.00 52.84 Part Total : 47.15 5.69 0.00 52.84 Part – III Serial Village Patwari Tahsil District Description of land Total Rema- number Circle ( in hectares ) rks Number Tenancy Govt. Forest[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2061 1 Pauni - Rajura Chandrapur 3.57 0.00 0.00 3.57 Part Total : 3.57 0.00 0.00 3.57 Part – IV Serial Village Patwari Tahsil District Description of land Total Rema- number Circle ( in hectares ) rks Number Tenancy Govt. Forest 1 Sakhari - Rajura Chandrapur 55.67 0.00 0.00 55.67 Part Total : 55.67 0.00 0.00 55.67 Part – V Serial Village Patwari Tahsil District Description of land Total Remarks number Circle ( in hectares ) Number Tenancy Govt. Forest 1 Chincholi - Rajura Chandrapur 104.08 3.55 0.00 107.63 Part Khurd Total : 104.08 3.55 0.00 107.63 Part – VI Serial Name of Patwari Tahsil District Description of land Total Rema- number Village Circle ( in hectares ) rks Number Tenancy Govt. Forest 1 Gauri - Rajura Chandrapur 140.95 4.18 0.00 145.13 Part Total : 140.95 4.18 0.00 145.13 Total area (Part I + Part II + Part III+ Part IV+Part V+Part VI) = 375.01 hectares (approximately) or 926.65 acres (approximately) Part - I Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Sakhari: 81/1, 81/2, 81/3, 82/1, 82/2, 83, 84, & 85. Part - II Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Pauni : 1/1/A, 1/1/B, 1/2/A, 1/2/B, 2, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 106, 107, 108/1, 108/2, 109/1, 109/2, 200/1, 200/2, 201, 202, 203, 205/1, 205/2, 206/1, 206/2, 207/1, 207/2, 208/1, 208/2, 209, 210/1, 210/2, 211/1, 211/2. Govt land: 204,Gauthan(Abadi). Part - III Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Pauni : 145/1, 145/2, 146/1, 146/2.2062 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Part – IV Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Sakhari : 226/1, 226/2, 227/1, 227/2, 230/1, 230/2, 231, 232, 233/1, 234, 235/1, 235/2, 235/3, 236/1, 236/2, 236/3, 237/1, 237/2, 238, 239/1, 239/2, 239/3, 239/4, 239/5, 239/6, 239/7, 240/1, 240/2, 241/1, 241/2, 241/3, 241/4, 242/1/A, 242/1/B, 242/2/A, 242/2/B, 243/1, 243/2, 243/3, 244, 245/1, 245/2, 245/3, 247/1/A, 247/1/B, 247/2, 247/3, 248/1, 248/2, 249/1, 249/2, 249/3, 249/4, 275/1, 275/2, 276/1, 276/2, 276/3. Part - V Plot numbers within notification boundary in village Chincholi Khurd : 15/1, 15/2, 15/3, 16/1, 16/2/A, 16/2/B, 17/1, 17/2, 17/3, 17/4, 18/1, 18/2, 18/3, 18/4, 18/5, 20/1, 20/2/A, 20/2/B, 20/3, 20/4, 23/1/1, 23/1/2, 23/2, 24/1/A, 24/1/B, 24/2, 25/1, 25/2, 26/1, 26/2, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3, 29/1, 29/2, 30/1, 30/2, 31/1, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4, 31/5, 43,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49/1, 49/2/A, 49/2/B, 49/3, 50/1, 50/1/A, 50/2, 50/3, 51/1, 51/2, 52/1, 52/2, 53/1, 53/2, 54/1, 54/2, 55, 56, 57/1, 57/2, 58/1, 58/2, 59/1/A, 59/1/B, 59/2/C, 59/2/D, 60/1, 60/2, 61, 62, 63, 64/1, 64/2, 65, 66, 67/1/A, 67/1/B, 67/3, 68/1, 68/2, 69/1/A, 69/1/C, 69/1/B, 69/2, 69/3, 69/4, 69/5, 82/1, 82/2, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3, 83/4, 84/1, 84/2, 310. Government land:- 19, 27 Pauni Nala Part, Chincholi Nala Part. Part - VI Plot number within notification boundary in village Gauri : 1, 2, 3, 595/1, 595/2, 595/3, 595/4, 596, 597, 598/1, 598/2, 599/1, 599/2, 600, 601/1, 601/2, 605/1/A/1, 605/1/A/2, 605/1/B, 605/2/A, 605/2/C, 610, 611/1, 611/2, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616/1, 616/2, 617/1, 617/2, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624/1, 624/2, 625, 626/1, 626/2, 626/3, 626/4, 626/5, 626/6, 626/7, 641/1(Part), 641/2/A(Part), 646/1, 647, 648/1, 648/2, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656/1, 656/2, 656/3, 657/1/A, 657/2, 658/1, 658/2, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664/1, 664/2, 665, 666, 667, 668/1, 668/2, 669/1, 669/2, 670/1, 670/2, 671/1, 671/2, 672/1, 672/2/A, 672/2/C, 672/2/D, 672/2/B, 672/3/A, 672/3/C, 672/3/B, 672/4/A, 672/4/C, 672/4/B, 673/1, 673/2, 674/1, 674/2, 675/1/A, 675/1/C, 675/1/B, 675/2, 676/1, 676/2, 676/3, 677/1, 677/2, 718, 721/1, 721/2, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 730, 731, 732. Government Land:- 646/2, 713, 714, 717, 722 Nala, Road. Boundary description: Part – 1 A – B : Line Starts from point number “A” near khasra number 81 of village Sakhri or outer boundary of already acquired land of khasra number 80 and passes along the outer or northern boundary of khasra numbers 81,82,83,84,85 and meets at point number “B” of comman village boundary of Sakhari and Pauni. B – C : Line starts from point number ‘B’ and passes along eastern boundary of khasra number 85 and meets at point number “C” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Pouni. C – D : Line starts from point number ‘C’ passes along the outer or northern boundary of khasra numbers 86 and 87 (already acquired land) southern boundary at khasra numbers 85,84,83,82 and 81 and meets at point number “D” of village Sakhari near outer boundary of already acquired of khasra number 80. D – A : Line starts from point number ‘D’ passes along eastern boundary of khasra number 80 (already acquired land) or western boundary at khasra number 81 and meets at point number “A” of village Sakhari.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2063 Part – II E - F : Line starts from point number “E” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Pouni, passes along northern boundary of khasra numbers 207, 208,210,211,1 and 3 southern boundary of Sakhari nala and meets at point number “F” of Village Pouni. F – G : Line starts from point number “F” of village Pouni passes along eastern boundary of khasra numbers 3,2,106,107 and 109 or western boundary Pouni nala and meets at point “G” of village Pouni. G – H : Line starts from point number “G” passes along south-west boundary of khasra numbers 109,108,203,202,201 and 200 and meets at point number “H” of common Village boundary of Sakhari & Pouni. H – E : Line starts from point number “H” passes along western boundary of khasra numbers 200,205 and 207 or eastern boundary of Sakhari nala and meets at Point number “E” of common village boundary of Pouni and Sakhari. Part – III I – J : Line starts from point number “I” of village Pouni passes along northern boundary of khasra number 146 or southern boundary of already acquired land of khasra number 147 and meets at Point “J” near Pauni nala (Part). J – K : Line starts from point number “J” passes along west boundary of ‘part’ Pauni nala or east boundary of Kh. No. 146 and 145 (To be acquired) cross the Pauni nala west to east and meet at Point “K” of common Village boundary of Pouni and Chincholi. K – L : Line starts from point number “K” cross the Pouni nala passes along north boundary of Kh.no. ‘28P’ of village Chincholi and meets at Point “L” of common village boundary of Pouni, Chincholi and Sakhari. L – M : Line starts from point number “L” passes along northern boundary of khasra numbers 241 and 240 of village Sakhari or southern boundary of khasra number 145 of village Pauni and meets at point “M” of common Village boundary of Sakhari and Pauni. M – N : Line starts from point number “M” passes along of western boundary of khasra number 145 and 146 P of village Pauni or eastern boundary of khasra number 239P and meets at point “N” of common Village boundary of Pouni and Sakhari. N – O : Line starts from point number “N” and meets at point number “O” of common village boundary of Pouni and Sakhari. O – I : Line starts from point number “O” and meet at point number “I” at Village of Pauni. Part – IV R – S : Line starts from point number “R” passes along western boundary of khasra numbers 276,275,249 or eastern boundary of already acquired land of khasra numbers 277, 274,273,272 and 252 of village Sakhari and meets at point number “S” of village Sakhari. S – T : Line starts from point number “S” passes along southern boundary of khasra numbers 249 and 247 or northern boundary of already acquired land of khasra number 250 and 246 and meets at point number “T” of Village Sakhari. T – U : Line starts from point number “T” passes along east boundary of khasra number 246 (already acquired land) and meets at point number “U” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Chincholi village. U – V : Line starts from Point “U” passes southern part boundary of khasra number 245 and 243 of village Sakhari or northern boundary of khasra number 23,24,25 and 26 of village Chincholi and meets at Point “V” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Chincholi.2064 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] V – L : Line starts from point number “V” passes along eastern boundary of khasra numbers 243, 242, and 241 of village Sakhari or western boundary of khasra number 28 of village Chincholi and meets Point “L” of common Village boundary of Sakhari, Chincholi and Pouni. L – M : Line starts point number “L” passes along northern boundary of khasra numbers 241 and 240 or southern boundary of khasra number 145 and meets at point “M” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Pouni. M – N : Line starts from point number “M” passes along eastern boundary of khasra number 239 Part or west boundary of khasra numbers 145 P and 146 P and meets at Point “N” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Pouni . N-O-P : Line starts from point number “N” passes along northern boundary of khasra number 239 or southern boundary of khasra number 146 P and 147 P and meet at point number “P” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Pouni village point number Via point number “O”. P – Q : Line starts from point number “P” passes along eastern boundary of khasra number 226 or western boundary of khasra number 147 and meet at point number “Q” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Pouni . Q – R : Line starts from point number “Q” passes along northern boundary of khasra numbers 226,227,230 and 276 or southern boundary of already acquired land of khasra numbers 225,228,229,216 P and meets at point number ”R” of Village Sakhari. Part – V U – W : Line starts from point number “U” of common village boundary of sakhari and Chincholi passes along southern boundary of already acquired land khasra numbers 246 and 250 P of village Sakhari or northern boundary of khasra number 310 of village Chincholi and meets at point number “W” of common village boundary of Sakhari and Chincholi. W – X : Line starts from point number “W” passes along western boundary of khasra number 310 of village Chincholi and meets at point number “X” of village Chincholi. X – Y : Line starts from point number “X” passes along southern boundary of khasra number 310 or northern boundary of khasra number 311 and meets at point number at “Y” of village Chincholi. Y – Z : Line starts from point number “Y” passes along eastern boundary of khasra numbers 311 and 312 north and east boundary of khasra number 22, west boundary of khasra number 23 P and meets at point number at “Z” of village Chincholi near Pouni nala. Z – A1 Line starts from point number “Z” passes along outer boundary of khasra numbers 23 P , 24P,25P and 26 P then cross the Pauni nala west to south near khasra number 26P and meets at point number at “A1” of village Chincholi near Pouni nala. A1 – B1 : Line starts from point number “A1” passes along west boundary of khasra number 20 east boundary of khasra number 21 and meets at point number at “B1” of village Chincholi. B1 – C1 : Line starts from point number “B1” passes along southern boundary of khasra number 20 or northern boundary of khasra number 13 and 14, west boundary of khasra number 15P or east boundary of khasra number 14 and meets at point number at “C1” of village Chincholi. C1 – D1 : Line starts from point number “C1” passes along south boundary of khasra number 15 and 16 north boundary of khasra numbers 71 and 70, south-west-south boundary of khasra number 69 and meets at point at “D1” near Chincholi nalla of Village Chincholi.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2065 D1 – E1 : Line starts from point number “D1” cross the Chincholi nalla west to east passes along south boundary of khasra numbers 82 and 83P or north boundary of khasra numbers 81,86 and 85 and meets at point number at “E1” of common village boundary of Chincholi and Gouri. E1 – F1 : Line starts from Point “E1” passes along south boundary of khasra number 83 P or north boundary of khasra number 610P and meets at point number at “F1” of common village boundary of Chincholi and Gouri. F1 – G1 Line starts form point number “F1” passes along east boundary of khasra numbers 83 and 84 then cross the Chincholi nalla, again passes east boundary or outer boundary of khasra numbers 61, 60 and meets at point “G1” of common village boundary of Chincholi and Gouri. G1- H1 : Line starts from point number “G1” passes along east boundary of khasra numbers 59,46,45P of village Chincholi or west boundary of khasra numbers 673,674,675 of village Gouri and meets at point number at “H1” of common village boundary of Chincholi and Gouri. H1 – I1 : Line starts from point number “H1” passes along east boundary of khasra numbers 45 P, 44 and 43 of village Chincholi or west boundary of khasra number 681 P of village Gouri and meets at Point at “I1” of common village boundary of Chincholi and Gouri. I1 – K : Line starts from point number “I1” passes along north boundary of khasra numbers 43, 49, 50 and 31 or southern boundary of khasra numbers 42,38,37 and 32 of village Chincholi passes along east boundary of Pauni nala part and meets at point number “K” of common Village boundary of Chincholi and Pouni. K – L Line starts from point number “K” cross the Pauni nala and meets at point number at “L” of common village boundary of Chincholi , Sakhari and Pauni. L - V Line starts from point number “L” passes along west boundary of khasra numbers 28/1, 28/2, 28/3 of village Chincholi and meets at North West corner of khasara number 27 and meets at point number “V”. V – U Line starts from point number “V” passes along north boundary of Khasra numbers 26/1, 25/1, 24/1/A, 23/1/1 of Gram Chincholi and meets at point number “U”. Part – VI E1 – J1 : Line starts from point number “E1” of common village boundary of Chincholi and Gouri, passes along West boundary of khasra number 610 or east boundary of khasra number 85P and meets at point “J1” of common Village boundary of Chincholi and Gouri. J1 – K1 : Line starts from point number “J1” passes along south boundary of khasra number 610 or north boundary of khasra numbers 608 and 609 west boundary of khasra number 605 P and meets at point number “K1” of village Gouri. K1 – L1 Line starts from point number “K1” cross the khasra numbers 605 west to east passes along southern boundary of khasra numbers 618,601,600 and 595 or north boundary of khasra numbers 603,589P, 602 and 590 and meets at point “L1” Village Gouri. L1 - M1 : Line starts from point number “L1” passes along east boundary of khasra number 595 or west boundary of Gouri nala Part and meets at point number “M1” of village Gouri. M1 - N1 : Line starts from point number “M1” passes along north boundary of khasra number 595 east boundary of khasra number 626 north boundary of khasra number 626P, east boundary of khasra numbers 647, 646, south boundary khasra number 641P and meets at point “N1” of village Gouri.2066 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] N1 – O1 : Line starts from point number “N1” cross the khasra number 641 in south to north passes along east boundary of khasra number 727 cross the village road and meets at point number “O1” of Village Gouri. O1 – P1 : Line starts from point number “O1” passes along south east boundary khasra number 730 south boundary of khasra number 2 south east boundary khasra number 1 and meets at point number “P1” of Village Gouri. P1 – Q1 : Line starts from point number “P1” passing along north boundary khasra numbers 1,2,3,732 and 731 cross the village road and meets at point number “Q1” of village Gouri. Q1 – R1 : Line starts from point number “Q1” passes along outer boundary already acquired land khasra number 720 and meets at point “R1 of Village Gouri. R1 – S1 : Line starts from point number “R1” passes along north boundary of khasra numbers 725, 721 and 718 cross the road east to west, again passes along north boundary of khasra number 713 or outer boundary already acquired land of khasra numbers 715, 710 and 712 and meets at point number “S1” of Junction of Chincholi and Pouni nala. S1 – T1 Line starts from point number “S1” cross the Chincholi nalla east to west passes along outer or east boundary of khasra number 678 of already acquired land of village Gouri and meets at point number “T1” near Chincholi nala Part. T1 – H1 : Line starts from point number “T1” passes along north boundary of khasra numbers 677, 676 and 675 or south boundary already acquired land of khasra number 678, 679 and 681 and meets at point number “H1” of common village boundary of Gouri and Chincholi. H1-G1 : Line starts from point number “H1” passes along west boundary of khasra numbers 675, 674 and 673 part or east boundary khasra numbers 45 part,46 and 59 and meets at point “G1” of common village boundary of Gouri and Chincholi. G1-F1 : Line starts from point number “G1” passes along north east boundary of khasra number 60,east boundary khasra number 61 cross the Chincholi nala,passes along north east boundery of khasra number 84 , east boundery of khasra number 83 and meets at point “F1” of common village boundary of Gouri and Chincholi. F1-E1 : Line starts from point “F1” passes along north boundary of khasra number 610 part and meets at point “E1”of common village boundary of Gouri and Chincholi. [F. No. 43015/10/2021-LA&IR] RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Dy. Secy. इलक्ट्े रॉवनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योवगकी मत्रं ालय नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्ट् त, 2021 का.आ. 798.—केंद्र सरकार एतदद्वारा राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के वलए प्रयोग) वनयम,1976 के वनयम 10 के उप वनयम (4) के अनुसरण म,ें इलेक्ट्रॉवनकी और सूचना प्रौद्योवगकी मंत्रालय के प्रशासवनक वनयंत्रण के अंतगता आन े िाली प्रगत संगणन विकास केंद्र (सी-डैक) नामक स्िायत्त संस्था के प्लॉट नंबर 20, एफसी-33 इंस्टीट्यूशनल एररया, जसोला, नई ददल्ली वस्थत कायाालय, वजसके 80% से अविक कमाचाररयों ने हिदं ी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर वलया ि,ै को अविसूवचत करती ि ै। [फा. स.ं 7(1)/2020-वि.अ.] भुिनेश कुमार, संयुक्त सजचव[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2067 MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2021 S.O. 798.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), an autonomous society under the administrative control of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, located at Plot No.20, FC-33 Institutional Area, Jasola, New Delhi, whose more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi. [F. No. 7(1)/2020-H.S] BHUVNESH KUMAR, Under Secy. श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई, 2021 का.आ. 799.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरणिं म,ें केन्द्री सरकार प्रिान,केंद्रीय आल ू अनुसंिान केंद्र (आईसीएआर), ग्िावलयर (म.प्र.) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और अध्यक्ष, जनरल मजदरू एकता यूवनयन, लश्कर, ग्िावलयर (म.प्र.) के बीच अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टि औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरणिं औघोजगक जववाि म ें औद्योजगक अजिकरणिं एवं श्रम न् ा ाल , जबलपुर ृंचा (संिभि सं्‍ ा CGIT/LC/R/11/2007) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक म ेंददिाया गया ि,ै प्रकाजित करती ि ज। [फा. स.ं एल- 42012/25/2006- आईआर-(डीय)ू ] डी.के. विमांशु, अवर सजचव MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 13th July, 2021 S.O. 799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/11/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour–Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Chief General manager, Deptt. Of Telecommunication, M.P. Circle, Bhopal (M.P.); The Head, Central Potato Research Station (ICAR), Gwalior (M.P.) and The President, General Mazdoor Ekta Union, Lashkar, Gwalior(M.P.) [F. No. L- 42012/25/2006- IR (DU)] D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO. CGIT/LC/R/11/2007 Present: P.K.Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd) The President, Genral Mazdoor Ekta Union, C/o shri Alok Kumar Sharma, Advocate, o/o Shri H.N.Upadhyay, Patankar Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior(M.P.) ….Workman Versus2068 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Head, Central Potato Research Station (ICAR), Post Box No.4, Morar-474006, Gwalior(M.P.) … Management A W A R D (Passed on this 7th day of April-2021.) As per letter dated 8/1/2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/25/2006-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to: “Whether the action of the management of Central Potato Research Station, Gwalior in terminating the services of their workman (Shri Jagdish Pal & 46 Others) as per annexure,w.e.f 1-5-2004, is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date .” 1. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. Both the parties have filed their respective claim/defence. 2. The statement of claim filed by the Union on behalf of the workman Union according to which Jagdish Pal & 46 workman as mentioned in the schedule to the Reference had been under the engagement of the Management as casual daily wager since last so many years, details of year of engagement mentioned with the claim of the workman in the Schedule goes to show that they were engaged since 1983 to 1994. According to the workman they have been continuously working on regular basis with full devotion and conviction and have worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days in every year. In the light of the order Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi passed on 19-2-2019 the process of regularization of daily wagers started in the year 1993. This process was to start in the institute but was not started by the Management, which is violation of order of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and Scheme framed in this respect by the Central Government. Though according to the workman/Union, the workman always kept on pressing for their regularization in the light of the Scheme. This annoyed the Management and they dis-engaged the services of the workman without notice or compensation and without any inquiry w.e.f 1-5-2004 which is violative of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, hereinafter referred to as the word’Act”. This is also the case of the workman union that the workman appointed as daily wagers after year 1993 were regularized which is again violative of Section 25 of the ‘Act’. Accordingly, the workman have prayed for setting aside their dis-engagement and prayed for their reinstatement with all back wages and benefits in service. 3. The case of the Management in their statement of defence is that these workman mentioned in the Schedule to the Reference were never appointed in any capacity as there were no sanctioned vacancy in this respect. These workman were appointed on daily basis as casual daily wager and none of them completed 240 days in continuous service, hence their disengagement due to non-availability of work is not violative of the ‘Act’. It is also stated that one person Lalaram who was regularized in the year 1993 who was admittedly engaged after the engagement of workman in Schedule was found fit for regularization as he had completed 240 days of engagement. Accordingly ,it has been stated that reference be answered against the workman. 4. Out of 47 workman mentioned in the Schedule to the Reference 21 workman filed their affidavits. They are as follows:- S. N Name of Workman who filed affidavit Their number Page no. 1 JAGDISH PAL 1 1-3 2 OM PRAKASH 2 4-6 3 HARIKISHAN 3 7-9 4 GOPAL 4 10-12[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2069 5 SITARAM 5 13-15 6 SANTOSH 6 16-18 7 RAMJILAL 13 19-21 8 JANDEL SINGH 14 22-24 9 POORAN 18 25-27 10 UMMED 19 28-30 11 MAHAVEER PRASAD 23 31-33 12 RAMESH 26 34-36 13 MAHESH 28 37-39 14 SIYARAM 29 40-42 15 CHATURI LAL SHARMA 37 43-45 16 DINESH SINGH BHADORIYA 38 46-48 17 SMT. JANKI BAI 39 49-51 18 SMT. GUDDI BAI 41 52-54 19 SMT. TARA BAI 42 55-57 20 SMT. GEETA BAI 45 58-60 21 SMT. EMARTI BAI 46 61-63 5. Apart from this affidavits of other workman Kallu, Daulatram, Harkishen, Prahlad were also filed and they have been cross-examined by the management. 6. Vide order dated 23-7-2009 the Management was directed to file documents mentioned in the order which was never complied with and no excuse for non-filing of the documents was given by the Management. 7. The Management filed affidavit of its witnesses but he was not produced for cross-examination and no other document was filed by the Management. 8. At the state of argument Mr. N.B.Sharma appeared on behalf of the workman. His arguments were heard. None appeared for Management at the time of argument. Management did not file any written argument inspite of opportunity given to them. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for workman that the workman had stated that they were engaged as casual daily wager and regularly worked with the Management in this capacity. They also continuously worked for a period of more than 240 days in every year and in the year preceding the date of their disengagement. Hence their disengagement without notice or compensation is violative of Section 25F of the ‘Act’. It has also been submitted that Management did not produce any muster roll, wage register inspite of directions of Court nor did it furnish any reason for non- production of the documents, hence adverse inference will be drawn against the Management for non- production of the documents. He further submits that these documents are not in the custody and possession of the workman, hence they are not in a position to produce them, hence their statement on oath regarding regularization of their junior which is admitted in the written statement of defence by Management and on the point that they worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more in every year and in the year preceding the date of their disengagement should be believed in absence of any evidence in rebuttal. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on following case laws:- 9. Assistant Vice President Human Resource And Development,Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.Chennai Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour Court (2019) 160 FLR 314 Madras High Court held that :- “When a workman worked for 10 years as peon no notice given prior to termination, Management did not produce documents to show that he had worked for specified2070 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] number of days, it was duty of Management to produce records and non-production of record will be fatal to Management.” 10. In another case Manager Muslim Musafir Khana, Moti Dongri Jaipur Vs. Zahir Khan(2016)151 FLR 995 held :- “workman is not required to show his working for 240 days, if he has worked continuously for an year or more.” 11. In another case Santosh Kumar Malviya Vs. Industrial Training Institute & ors.(2021) 168 FLR 11 MP held :- “Training institute carried out systematic activity and said activity was service calculated to satisfy human wishes, hence would be covered within the definition of Industry.” 12. In another case Ramsumer Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,U.P(2021) 168 FLR 63 Allahabad, it was held: “ that the workman has discharged his duty, the moment he had stepped into the witness box and stated his case and there was no rebuttal worth the name from the side of the employer.” 13. In another case Union of India & Another Vs. Surendra Singh Rashtriya Adhyaksha (INTUC) & Ors.(2019)162 FLR 467 it was held: “that the evidence that workman had worked continuously for 240 days, burden to prove otherwise lies on Management as it has the records and documents.” 14. Before entering into discussion on merits, it is necessary to reproduce some legal provisions Section 25B, 25G and 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which are as follows:- Section 25 B:-Definition of continuous service.- (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 authorised 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; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six 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) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. 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: 1[***] (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.] 25G. Procedure for retrenchment.- Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. 25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.- Where any workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2071 be prescribed, give an opportunity 2[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons. 15. Now in the case in hand, the workman have stated on oath that they were engaged for many years before their disengagement, the specific period mentioned in their affidavits. They worked for 240 days in every year including the year preceding the date of their dis-engagement. They also stated that they were not paid any compensation or given any notice. Also that juniors were regularized and they were left un-regularised and when they raised their demands they were dis-engaged. The management, in its statement of defence has admitted that the workman were daily wagers engaged by Management but has disputed their claim that they worked continuously for 240 days in a year. Management admits that no notice or compensation was given. Management also admits that one Lalaram who was junior to the workman was regularized which, according to the Management was found to have worked for 240 days. In the light of this admission of Management the burden lied on the management to prove its case that regularisation of Lalaram was justified in law and fact as claimed by the Management. The burden also lied on Management to rebut the claim of the workman by evidence that they did not work continuously for 240 days in a year and in the year preceding the date of their disengagement, moreover Management did not produce documents summoned by my learned Predecessor, as mentioned above, this fact also goes against the Management and it may be presumed that had the documents been produced they would have been against the case of the Management. The Management did file affidavit of its witness but he was never produced for cross- examination by Management, hence his affidavit cannot be read in evidence. The Management has filed no other evidence in the form of documents or otherwise to prove its case. 16. Hence in the backdrop of such a factual position, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the workman have successfully proved their continuous engagement for 240 days in the year preceding the date of their dis-engagement. They have also successfully proved that Lalaram , person junior to them in the year of appointment was regularized and they were not considered for regularisation without basis. In absence of any notice or compensation the action of Management in dis-engaging the workman as mentioned in the Schedule, cannot be held to be legal and justified in law. Hence the action of Management is held against law and unjustified. 17. As regards the consequential relief, learned counsel for workman has submitted that the work is still their, it is being done by contractors, hence the workman be reinstated with back wages. 18. In the case of Deepali Gundu Suwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapad Mahavidyalaya(2013) 10 SCC 324(2013(6) SLR 642(SC) broad principles in this respect were laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court which are as follows:- “38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are : 38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 38.2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/ workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. 38.3. Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/ workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. 38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11- A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry2072 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] held against the employee/ workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved then it will have the discretion not to award fullback wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charges then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages. 38.5. The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Court should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrong doer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is justification to give premium to,the employer of his wrong doings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. 38.6 In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases, it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin works Private Limited V.Employees of Hindustan TinWorks Private Limited (supra). 38.7 The observation made inJ.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P.Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to here-in-above and cannot be treated as good law.This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman. Furthermore, in Tapash Kumar Paul V. BSNL (2014) 4 SCR 875 :[2014(6) SLR 538 (SC)], it is held :- “Therefore, in the light of the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu’s case (supra) which has correctly relied upon higher bench decisions of this Court in Surendra Kumar Verma’s case (supra) and Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I am of the opinion that the appellant herein is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages since in the absence of full back wages, the employee will be distressed and will suffer punishment for no fault of his own.” 19. .”In the light of the aforesaid principles, keeping in view the length of engagement of workman, ends of justice will be served if the workman are reinstated as daily wager but without back wages. Hence they are held entitled to be reinstated without back wages. 20. On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:- A. The action of the managementof Central Potato Research Station, Gwalior in terminating the services of their workman (Shri Jagdish Pal & 46 Others) as per annexure, w.e.f 1-5-2004, is unjustified in law. B. The workman are held entitled to be reinstated without back wages. 21. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules. P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2073 नई दिल्ली, 16 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 800.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार िररष्ठ अिीक्षक डाक घर,पटना मडं ल, बाकं ीपरु पटना के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री अरहिदं कुमार शमा,ा कामगार के बीच अनुबंि म ें वनर्दष्टा औद्योवगक वििाद म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण औघोजगक जववाि म ें औद्योजगक अजिकरणिं एवं श्रम न् ा ाल -2, िनबाद पचं ाट(सदं भ ा सख्ं या 67of 1998) को जैसा दक अनलु ग्नक में ददिाया गया ि,ै को प्रकावशत करती ि ैजो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 10/11/2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा. स.ं एल- 40012/154/96- आईआर-(डीय)ू ] डी.के. विमांशु, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 16th November, 2021 S.O. 800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67 of 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour– 2 Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Patna Division, Bankipur Patna and Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, Worker which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 10/11/2021. [F. No. L- 40012/154/96- IR (DU)] D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD. PRESENT Dr.S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer. In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947. REFERENCE No. 67 of 1998. PARTIES: Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, S/O Shri Shyam Nandan Sharma, Vill./P.O. Sarasat, Dist: Patna-801109, PATNA (BIHAR) Vs. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Patna Division, Bankipur, Patna-800004. Order No. L-40012/154/96-IR(DU) dt. 10.03.1998 APPEARANCES : On behalf of the Workman/Union : Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate On behalf of the Management : Mr. H.Nath , Ld. Advocate . State : Bihar Industry : Posts Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th March, 20212074 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] A W A R D The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-40012/154/96-IR (DU) dt. 10.03.1998. SCHEDULE Whether the action of the management of Postal Department in terminating the services of Sh.Arvind Kumar Sharma, E.D., Post Master, Sarasat, Branch Post Office is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 1. On receipt of the Order No. L-40012/154/96-IR (DU) dt. 10.03.1998 of the reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was registered as Reference case No. 67 of 1998 on 23.03.1998 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned. 02. Consequent upon registration the case as Ref. No. 67 of 1998 as referred by the Government of India vide its letter No. Order No. L-40012/154/96-IR (DU) dt. 10.03.1998 the case was set in rolling on 23.03.1998 with filing of the Written Statement and subsequent counter claim by the Management of Superintendent of the Post Offices, Patna followed by rejoinders filed against each other with exchange of copy and vice versa, The matter was further advanced and adduced by the workman man /Petitioner on 06.03.2003 but it stopped over argument on the side of the Management as they did not complete evidence on its part. So the matter switched over to arguments. The O.P./Management kept on buying time. Finally at the last leg of the proceedings at argument stage the O.P./Management and petitioner/workman appeared on 21.01.2021 and Management moved a withdrawal petition submitted by the workman expressing therein unwillingness to contest the Industrial Dispute any more due to personal reason. The concerned workman was present during this hearing and reiterated in writing on the face of the withdrawal petition in presence of the Management Representative in the open Court. The Management submitted that they agree for withdrawal of the dispute as submitted by the workman .So the case matter in the Industrial Dispute was concluded for hearing and passing of Award/Order to answer the Reference. 03. Considering the background and facts of the case to adjudicate the matter on contest the workman/petitioner enclosing the Withdrawal petition dated 19.01.2021 submitted again a fresh petition before the Tribunal in the presence of the Representative of the O.P./Management in the open Court the Tribunal’s role becomes functus officio and has no scope to move ahead for adjudication along with the statements and submissions made so far becoming infructuous. With the filing of the “Withdrawal Letter” and confirming the same by the workman, the issue in the case matter of dispute appear to be of no more to exist..The dispute is thus diluted and thus absolved of the issue under which the Reference was framed .Accordingly the Industrial Dispute by and between the parties being treated as non-existent stands disposed of forthwith with no relief. Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 801.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार अध्यक्ष / अध्यक्ष डॉ ए वशिथनु वपल्लई, विवशष्ट िैज्ञावनक और मुख्य वनयंत्रक (आर एंड डी) डीआरडीओ और सीईओ और एमडी, ब्रह्मोस एयरोस्पेस, 16, कररयप्पा माग,ा दकबी प्लेस, ददल्ली कैंट , नई ददल्ली के माध्यम स े बोडा ऑफ गिनास,ा नेशनल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ टेक्नोलॉजी, कुरुक्षेत्र; वनदेशक, राष्ट्रीय प्रौद्योवगकी संस्थान, कुरुक्षेत्र; मुख्य िाडान (लड़के), राष्ट्रीय प्रौद्योवगकी संस्थान, कुरुक्षेत्र; मुख्य िाडान (लड़दकया)ं , राष्ट्रीय प्रौद्योवगकी संस्थान, कुरुक्षेत्र; के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और मेस कल्याण कमाचारी संघ (मेस कल्याण कमाचारी संघ), राष्ट्रीय प्रौद्योवगकी[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2075 संस्थान, कुरुक्षेत्र,के बीच अनुबंि म ें वनर्दष्टा औद्योवगक वििाद म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण- सि- श्रम न्द्यायालय-ll,चंडीगढ़ पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 65/2015) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें ददिाया गया ि,ै प्रकावशत करती ि ै जो केन्द्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 12/11/2021 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा. स.ं एल- 42011/229/2015 - आईआर-(डीय)ू ] डी.के. विमांशु, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 16th November, 2021 S.O. 801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court –ll,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Board of Governors, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra through its Chairperson/Chairman Dr. A. Sivathanu Pillai, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller (R&D) DRDO & CEO and MD, BrahMOS Aerospace, 16, Cariappa Marg, Kirby Place, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi.;The Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra;The Chief Warden (Boys), National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra; The Chief Warden (Girls), National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra; and Mess Kalyan Employees Union(Mess Kalyan Karamchari Sangh), National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12/11/2021. [F. No. 42011/229/2015 - IR (DU)] D.K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh. Present: Sh. A.K. Singh, Presiding Officer. ID No.65/2015 Registered on:-08.02.2016 Mess Kalyan Employees Union(Mess Kalyan Karamchari Sangh), National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. ................ Union Versus 1. Board of Governors, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra through its Chairperson/Chairman Dr. A. Sivathanu Pillai, Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller (R&D) DRDO & CEO and MD, BrahMOS Aerospace, 16, Cariappa Marg, Kirby Place, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi. 2. Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. 3. Chief Warden (Boys), National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. 4. Chief Warden(Girls), National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. ...... Respondents/Managements Award Passed on:- 22.09.2021 Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/229/2015-IR(DU) Dated 13.01.2016, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:- “Whether the action of the management of National Institute of Technology(NIT), Kurukshetra in not accepting the demands of the Union Mess Kalyan Employees Union(Mess Kalyan Karamchari Sangh), National Institute of Technology,2076 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Kurukshetra is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen is entitled to and from which date? 1. The instant claim petition has been preferred by the Mess Kalyan Employees Union, claiming to represent the workers employed in the hostels being run in the Campus of Regional Engineering College which is subsequently upgraded as National Institute of Technology vide Notification dated 26.02.2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources, New Delhi and is now been fully funded by the Government of India. The Union has preferred this claim petition for redressal of the grievances of the employees relating to their working conditions such as regularization of their services and for grant of regular pay scale at par with the State/Central Govt. Employees and for various other service benefits. Union also approached the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by filing CWP No.17988 of 1996 where it is directed to raise the dispute before the competent forum. The members of the Union have been working in the hostels run by the institute and they are working on the various posts known as Supervisor, Head Cook, Assistant Cook, Cook, Counterman, Lady Attendant, Waiter, Common Room Attendant, Chapati Man, Kitchen Man, Sweeper, Pantry Man etc. The workers have been working continuously for considerable period i.e. 12 to 35 years. The workers have been appointed by the Warden with the approval of Chief Warden without any appointment letter on a very meager salary which is less then the minimum pay scale. The management deducts the CPF amount as workers share and equal amount is contributed by the institute. The accounts are in the name of the employees and the interest drawn on the amount of CPF/EPF is quite low as compare to the interest rate granted by the EPF organization. All administrative decisions relating to terms and conditions of service of the employees and the facilities and incentives to be given to the employees are taken by the Chief Warden/BOR and workers working in the hostel are the employees of the Institute for all intents and purposes. The State Government issued a regularization policy on 27.05.1995 vide which the casual and daily rated employees who completed 5 years service on 31.03.1993 were ordered to be regularized and they were required to be put in the regular pay scale(Annexure W2). The management is employer of the workers and there exist master and servant relationship between the workers and management. The management have adopted the regularization policy framed by the Haryana Government and regularized large number of employees but the said policy has not been made applicable to the workers working in the hostels as such, the management has acted in total arbitrary and discriminatory manner and the workers suffered hostile discrimination at the hands of the management. It is therefore prayed the above demands i.e. regularization and consequential benefits may kindly be ordered to be accepted and the appropriate orders be passed directing the management to do the needful. 2. Management has replied through his written statement, alleging therein that the institute initially known as Regional Engineering College was set up by the Government of India, Ministry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.02.1962. However, vide notification dated 26.02.2002 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development(Department of Secondary and Higher Education), New Delhi, the Regional Engineering College has been upgraded as National Institute of Technology and is now being fully funded by the Government of India. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the Institute in the Mess Workers and there being no sanctioned cadre post. Mess Workers are not entitled to regular pay structure and other service benefits as admissible to regular employees. However, the Mess Worker are given free food, uniform, accommodation for residential purposes, liveries, washing soap etc, they are also allowed 15 days paid casual leave every year and full pay during vacations in the colleges when the messes remain closed and are also allowed to draw ration from Mess during the period, a particular mess remains closed, in case the prefer to stay in the hostel. The hostel mess is being run by the students residing in the respective hostels on cooperative basis on no profit no loss basis and are being managed by the students mess committees. The mess committees engage the workers like Supervisors, Cooks, Bearers, Chapati man etc. and pay them wages out of the contributions made by the students. The institute makes no financial contribution towards running of these messes as such, there is n relationship of employer and employees between them. It is wrong that role of the students mess committee is very limited and concerned only to the satisfaction of food to their choice. The pay bills of the workers engaged in the mess are prepared by MMCA, which are put up to the mess committee and it is only after approval of the mess committee through Mess Secretary/Designated[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2077 Member the payments of salary is released. A mess worker contributes an amount equivalent to one year salary and matching amount is contributed by the students through their monthly contribution. The passbook record is maintained in the hostel and the individual worker is allowed to avail loan as and when it is deemed fir and in case of worker leaving the job the account is closed and payment is made as per rule. The mess workers are given free food, uniform, accommodation for residential purposes, liveries, washing soap etc. and are also allowed 15 days paid casual leave every year and full pay during vacations in the colleges when the mess remains closed. It is wrong that mess workers are getting less than the minimum wages, they are getting more than the minimum wages. It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 3. Workmen-Union has filed replication to the written statement filed by the management, alleging therein that management have taken a totally false and frivolous plea that institute never employed mess employees and paid salary and one or two teaching staff member with each mess acts as a Coordinating Advisory Body for all the messes together and to ensure uniformity of working of the various messes and institute makes no financial contribution towards running of messes particularly the payment of salaries. The management taking self contradictory pleas which are diametrically opposite to each other. Without passing the order by the Warden no payment can be made to any worker and all the funds are being managed by the Warden and not by the mess committee. The management has not denied the existence and the authenticity of the documents W-1 and W-44. The remaining paras in the replication are same as such, need not to be repeated again. 4. In order to prove the facts alleged in the claim petition, workmen-Union has examined Dharmender Singh, one of workmen who has submitted his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A along with documents Ex.AW-1 to AW-53 and cross-examined by the learned counsel of the management. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that there are many workers who have been engaged prior to him and some are working for the last 30 to 35 years. He has further stated that nobody has been regularized out of the workers engaged in the mess under the policy issued by the State of Haryana and messes are being run through cooperative system. 5. Management has submitted affidavit of witness Dr. Jitender Kumar, Associate Professor/Deputy Chief Warden, NIT Kurukshetra, who submitted his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1/1 and MW1/2 and cross-examined by the learned AR of the workmen. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that the recommendation and proposal of the mess committee is finally look after by the Chief Warden and he is the final authority. He has further admitted that the rules have been made on the basis of the recommendation made by the different mess committees by the Warden and Chief Warden. He has further stated that order regarding the terms and conditions governed by the management have been issued separately. The employees are sanctioned loan by the Warden of the concerned-hostel. Employees are appointed and retrenched on the basis of the mess committee by the concerned hostel-Warden. 6. I have heard the learned AR for the workmen Sh. Dinesh Kumar as well as learned counsel of the management Sh. Amarjit Singh Virk and perused the file. 7. Learned counsel of the claimant-union argued in the light of the written arguments that the documents filed by the claimant-union Ex.AW1 to AW-53 are positive and convincing proof that NIT-Kurukshetra has full control with respect to the disbursement of salary, increment, transfer and disciplinary action etc. against the workers of union and it clearly prove that financial as well as administrative control and supervision of the workers of the union is with the management of NIT-Kurukshetra. Learned counsel of the workers-union referred the documents attached with the affidavit of the witness Dharmender Singh one of workmen who has submitted his affidavit as Ex.WW1/A along with documents Ex.AW-1 to AW-53 on behalf of the workers-union and contended that the constitution of the rules and regulations of the Mess Committee is also proof that financial and administrative control lies with the administration of NIT-Kurukshetra through Chief Warden and other employees of the institute itself. Learned counsel further contended that there is no any independent identity of the Mess Committee or any statutorily provision regarding its formation and functioning and workers are engaged by Mess Committee subject to the final approval of the Warden of the respective hostels for preparing meals, breakfast etc. for the2078 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] students of the respective hostels. Learned counsel further contended that in fact workers mentioned in the list attached with the claim petition are the employees of the NIT-Kurukshetra and there exists relationship of employer and employee. Mere fact that Mess Committee is engaged with the management of workers does not prove that Chief Warden/Warden or service provider of the Hostel did not have actual control and supervision on the staff of the Mess Committee. As per the argument of the learned counsel of the claimant workers of the union are serving management from last 12 to 35 years and their services have not been regularized on the pretext of that they are not the employees of the institute. Learned counsel contended that taking regular work from the members of the claimant-union for such a long time amounts unfair labour practice as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in so many judgments. Learned counsel placing reliance in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporaiton Ltd. Vs. Casterbe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghalana, (2009) 8 SCC 556(in short “Casterbe”), argued that observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi Case is distinguished and Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Industrial/Labour Court under the Act has got specific power to take affirmative action against the erring employers and orders can well be made to accord permanency to the employers affected by such unfair labour practice. Learned counsel of the claimant-union has placed reliance in the cases of decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchants’ Association, Gondia and others Vs. State of Bombay, Civil Appeals Nos.415 of 1960, decided on 15.11.1961, The Bharat Bank, Ltd. Delhi Vs. The Employees of the Bharat Bank, Ltd. Delhi and the Bharat Bank Employee’s Union, Delhi, Civil Appeal No.34 of 1950, decided on 26.05.1950, ONGC Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3727 of 2015(Arising Out of SLC(C) No.5532 of 2012), decided on 17.04.2015, Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others, Civil Appeal No.691 of 2001, decided on 18th January, 2001, Krishna S/o Bulaji Borate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No.788 of 2001, State of M.P. and others Vs. Shyam Parthi Etc. Etc., Civil Appeal Nos.11576 of 1995(Arising out of SLP(C) No.14288/95), decided on 16.11.1995, Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others as well as in the case of Government of West Bengal Vs. Tarun K. Roy and others, Civil Appeal No.3527 of 1998, decided on 18th, November, 2003. 8. The learned counsel of management of NIT-Kurukshetra argued in the line of written argument that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the institute with Mess Workers and there is no sanctioned post hence, workers are not entitled to regular pay scale and other service benefits as admissible to regular employees. Learned counsel further contended that hostel mess are being run by the students residing in hostels on cooperative basis on no profit no loss basis and are being managed by the students mess committees who not only engaged the workers like Supervisors, Cooks, Bearers, Chapatiman etc. and pay them wages out of the contributions made by the students. As per the learned counsel, there is no financial contribution towards running of these messes by the institute and it had never employed mess employees nor paid any salary to the employees as such, there is no relationship of employer and employee between them. Learned counsel further contended that in order to ensure uniformity of working of various messes, it becomes desirable to associate one or two teaching staff member with each mess and to have a coordinating advisory body for all the messes. Since the hostels are situated in the campus of the institute as such, the basic infrastructure is being provided by the institute. The institute has provided staff comprising Mess Manager-cum-Accountant, Clerks, Farash, Chowkidars, Sweepers and Mali for the smooth functioning of the mess to avoid any problems to the students residing in the hostels. As per the learned counsel, there is no sanctioned post for workers like Supervisors, Cooks, Bearers, Chapatiman etc. and there is no provision for CPF for the mess- workers. However on their requests, a welfare fund was constituted of mess workers who contribute an amount equivalent to one year salary and matching amount is contributed by the students through their monthly contribution and the same was being deposited in the bank- account. Learned counsel vehemently contended that there does not exists any financial or administrative control of the NIT-Kurukshetra-management over the workers working there and payment or salary etc. of the members of the union as such, claim petition preferred by the union on behalf of their members has no force and award is liable to be answered in negative. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the cases of Secretary of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, Civil Appeal Nos.3595-3612 of 1999, decided on 10.04.2006, Hindustan Aeronautics[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2079 Ltd. Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and others, Civil Appeal No.2195 of 2007, decided on April 27, 2007, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, Civil Appeal No.2541 of 2005, decided on April 17, 2007, V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India. CW No.1393 of 1996, decided on 31.08.2001, MMTC Ltd. Vs. The Learned Fourth Industrial Tribunal and others, 2014 SCC Online Cal 17668(2015) 144 FLR 484 as well as in the case of Yogesh Tyagi and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.17206 of 2014(O&M), decided on 31.05.2018 9. Before entering into the merit of the case, it will be pertinent to mention those facts which are either admitted between the parties or not controverted by the management in its pleadings or evidence. The employment of members of the union mentioned in the list attached with the claim petition numbering 250 with the mess, the date of joining mentioned in the list are neither denied nor controverted by the management in its pleadings. Similarly, it is also not disputed that they are rendering their services continuously to the different hostels till today without any break in service. There is no dispute that management/respondents did not initiate proceeding for their regularization in the light of the judgment of Uma Devi case or regularization policy issued by the Government. It is also not disputed that entire building of the mess furniture and other facilities are part and parcel of the institute and there are so many working employees in the form of Mess Manager-cum-Accountant, Clerks, Farash, Chowkidars, Sweepers and Mali for the smooth functioning of the mess to avoid any problems to the students residing in the hostels. 10. The first question which arises for consideration relates to the relationship of employer and employee between the employees of the union as well as management of NIT-Kurukshetra. There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with the management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a calendar year. In this connection reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Mehgajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47. 11. No doubt, Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing the catena of cases has laid down in Balwant Raj Saluja Vs. Air India Limited in Civil Appeal No.10266 dated 25.08.2014, has observed two well recognised tests to find out whether the relation of employer and employee i.e. payment of salary, control and supervision of work. In fact, it is a question of fact in each case whether the relationship of master and servant exists between the management and workman and there is no abstract a priori test of work, control required by establishing the control of service. Apart from this, in several other judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that question of fact of each case with respect to the relationship of employer and employee, master and servant is not an abstract a priority test of working control required for establishing control and service. In fact apart from financial and control test it is also held in several judgments that Tribunal is required to consider similar factors which have appear for result (a) who is appointing authority (b) who has pay (c) who can dismiss the alternative service (d) the exact control and supervision (e) whether it is professional or skilled work (f) nature of establishment (g) the right to reserve. Thus, factual position of case along with the documents filed by the respective parties has to be examined and discussed to find out the relation between workmen and management of NIT- Kurukshetra 12. Learned counsel of the management has contended that there is nothing on record to prove that workers of the union has been engaged by the NIT-Kurukshetra and it has control over the employees of the mess but the mess committee which has specific role in the matter of management and control of mess. Since there exists no evidence whatsoever on record that the employees working in the mess were appointed by the NIT-Management in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or the statute framed therein, question of being master and servant would not arise. Contrary to this, learned counsel of the claimant-union contended that messes of the respective hostels are integral part of NIT-Kurukshetra and the same have been established and are maintained by the authorities of the institute. The employees engaged in the mess work under the supervision and control of the authorities of the institute as such, there exists strong2080 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] relationship of employer and employee between the mess workers as well as NIT-Kurukshetra. In this connection, learned counsel of the claimant-union has drawn my attention towards the documents filed and proved by the witness of the workmen-union namely Dharmender Singh through his affidavit Ex.WW1/A along with documents Ex.AW-1 to AW-53 and contended that mess employees are treated as regular mess-employees and their exists relations of master and servant between the NIT-Kurukshetra and mess-employees. It can be observed that there is no middle man or contractor between workers and mess committee is associated only for limited purposes which go on changing every year but the employees remain their forever. It is pertinent to mention that Ex. AW-15 filed by the witness namely Dharmender which are on record relates to the hostel rules which denotes that mess is run on cooperative basis with the students under the overall supervision of Warden. As per the rules the mess committee shall be constituted from the students and shall function only after the approval of the Warden who has right to remove any mess committee member(student) in the interest of the hostel. The staff engaged for the smooth functioning of the mess has to be recommended by the mess committee which shall be implemented after the approval of the Chief Warden. Workers-counsel has cross-examined the witness of the management namely Dr. Jitender Kumar, Associate Professor/Deputy Chief Warden, NIT Kurukshetra, who submitted his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1/1 and MW1/2. He has admitted that the recommendation of proposal of the mess committee is finally look after by the Chief Warden who has final authority. He has also admitted that the order regarding the terms and conditions governing by the management have been issued separately. In fact, documents filed by the workers-union through witness Dharmender Singh as Ex.AW-1 to Ex.AW-53 relates with the minutes of meeting, regularization policy, orders of granting of additional DA, retirement order, relieving and posting of certain employees, imposing the punishment, granting of ad-hoc relief, granting of additional increment to mess workers, medical leave etc., bill relating to the payment of salary of the staff of hostel no.2, the mass transfer of employees from one mess to another hostel passed by the Chief Warden, increase of various allowance and payment of one year salary on the death of an employee towards compensation, raising of medical allowances, compensatory leave, deduction of CPF rates, introduction of EPF Scheme, purchase of uniform of the mess staff, granting of financial benefits on the retirement of an employee, revision of pay scale and special hostel for mess staff w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and deduction of CPF @ 10% on the basic pay, grant of one additional increment on the completion of 10 years to mess workers dully signed by the Warden and Chief Warden or the other staff of the institute apart from the suspension order dated 20.02.2015 of the Chief Warden Ex.AW-39, order regarding initiation of disciplinary action against the mess staff, termination of Lela Devi dated 12.02.2016, suspension of the order dated 12.02.2016 denotes that it is the official of the institute working as Warden or Chief Warden who are taking administrative action related to the suspension, termination etc. with respect to the workers related to the different mess of the institute. Thus, the documents filed by the workers through its witness namely Dharmender Singh reveals that it is the NIT-Kurukshetra who has all time to control and administrative-authority to run the mess with the aid and advice of the mess committee. It is not disputed that the workers of the mess numbering 250 mentioned in the list are rendering their services from decades showing that they are skilled workers for mess working and the institute as well as hostels has to travel a long journey for its purpose and object of education. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the mess services is essential for the efficient working of the students without whom the existence of NIT-Kurukshetra cannot be imagined 13. Furthermore, the documents filed by the workers-union as Ex.AW1 to Ex.AW53 reveals that entire claimants/workers work under the direct supervision for the Warden/Assistant Warden in accordance with the advice of the food committee and under the control and supervision of the Chief Warden. All cases of administration regarding the increment, allowances, suspension, termination and other punishments etc. has been dealt by the Warden or Chief Warden in consultation with the Warden and the food committee. Undoubtedly ,there is no specific evidence with respect to the engagement of the claimants/workers by the NIT-Kurukshetra but it is proved that different mess committee of the hostel is responsible for the appointment of the workers subject to the approval of the Warden/Chief Warden. Similarly, Warden has full financial control of the hostels and for the purpose of accounting and other staff has been provided by the institute[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2081 which is not disputed between the parties. The rules and regulations pertaining to the smooth running and functioning of the hostels mess do not warrant any other conclusion than to treat an essential requirement. So far as the minutes of the meeting of the hostel is concerned, the involvement of the Warden and Chief Warden, Accountant, Attendant who are admittedly all belonging to the institute as employees thereof cannot negate the cry of the workers being employee of the institute itself. Thus, the documents attached with the file, the statement of the workers-union witness namely Dharmender as well as management witness Dr. Jitender Kumar, Associate Professor/Deputy Chief Warden makes it crystal clear that mess workers are the employees of the NIT-Kurukshetra and they are rendering their services for more than decades. 14. Learned counsel of the management contended that merely because NIT-Kurukshetra provided building of hostel, furniture, mess and staff for running of the mess does not mean that the members of the claimant-union workers can be treated as they are employees. Similarly, it is also argued that it does not give rise to the assumption that control and supervision over the mess employees is exercised by the NIT-Kurukshetra or Chief Warden. As per the learned counsel of the management, the mess committee has a separate entity then the NIT-Kurukshetra which is related to the students and officers of the NIT-Institute is only to assist them the amount deposited by the students is retained by the NIT-Management as trustee could not make it employer of the workers. These arguments do not find support from the voluminous documents filed by the workers-union. In fact NIT-Kurukshetra has failed to produce any rules and regulations under which the mess committee is constituted or it has separate entity. Whether or not the workmen in question are employees of the NIT-Kurukshetra has to be examined on the basis of the evidence that is adduced before this Tribunal. In fact, the contribution of the students regarding the mess is released by the accountant of the mess supplied by the institute of NIT-Kurukshetra and such amount is retained by the accountant and payment of salary is made accordingly. Hence, it cannot be accepted that NIT-Kurukshetra is only custodian of the money. I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any rules and regulations with respect to the running of mess of the different hostels appears to be a method of device to deprive the workmen from their legitimate entitlements. The mess committees of the hostels has not a corporate entity or having distinct individuality. It appears that this is a committee formed as per the requirement of the hostels and members of the mess committee supported the management. The mess committee is not even like and arrangement with an independent contractor. Moreover, even a person employed through a contractor can be taken to an employee of the member who engage the contractor. The overwhelming evidence of record reveals that the employment of the workmen through mess committee which is nothing but a body formulated by the NIT-Kurukshetra to carry a day to day functioning and to look after the daily course of the mess. 15. Learned counsel of the NIT-Kurukshetra further contended that the principle laid down in the case of Uma Devi case(supra) is duly followed in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh and others(supra), as well as in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others. As per the learned counsel of the NIT- Kurukshetra, this Tribunal has got no power to direct regularization of the union-workers as well as other benefits mentioned in the claim petition because its amount creation of posts which is in domain of the executive and not of the Tribunal. Further learned counsel contended that it will be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because all the workers are not duly engaged employees of the NIT-Kurukshetra as such, union-workers are not authorized for regularization. Contrary to this, learned counsel of the union-workers has drawn my attention towards the judgment of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporaiton Ltd. Vs. Casterbe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghalana, (2009) 8 SCC 556(in short “Casterbe”), arguing that this judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Courts culls out the ratio of the judgment of Umadevi and holds it as a verdict not applicable to industrial workers or workmen by definition to whom the protective rights flowing from Entry 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, employing by way of unfair labour practice(workmen as badlis, casual or temporaries and continue for them as such years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen). Undoubtedly, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi(supra) case has directed regularization of those workers who have extended 10 years or more than 10 years of service on the date of judgment against duly sanctioned post but not covered under the order of Courts or of Tribunals for one time regularization. The question which2082 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] arises for consideration is whether judgment of Umadevi stands distinguished and explained in the landmark judgment delivered by the Court in Casterbe. The judgment of the Supreme Court dealt with the State Law of Maharashtra cited as The Maharasthra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, (MRTU & PULP Act). The Court dealt with Section 21(1) and its proviso; Schedule IV Items 2, 5, 6 and 9 and especially with Item 6 which is in pari material with the provisions of Entry 10 of the 5th Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the commonality being a facet of unfair labour practice to keep workmen as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such “for years” with the object of depriving them of the status and previleges of permanent workmen. The Constitution Bench in Umadevi was explained in Para 35 in Casterbe as follows:- 35. Umadevi (3) 1 is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme. 36. Umadevi (3)1 does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi (3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established.” The Hon’ble Court in the case of Casteribe has rejected the argument raised by the corporation by observing that Industrial/Labour Court under the Act has got specific power to take affirmative action against the erring employers and orders can well be made to accord permanency to the employers affected by such unfair labour practice. However, the victims of unfair labour practice of the employer deserve freedom of permanency where facts and circumstanced demand in the canvas of Casteribe. 16. It is pertinent to mention that the judgment of Casteribe dealt with MRTU & PULP Act enacted by the State of Maharashtra but the provisions of unfair labour practice are identical to Entry 10 of the 5th Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Entry 10 is a statutory protection against individual discrimination and exploitation provided the discrimination continues ‘for years’. It would follow that short duration of employment is per se not violative of Entry 10 of the Act and length of employment becomes relevant consideration to examine unfair labour practice issues. In Umadevi the Constitution Bench protected regularization done but those appointments which were not sub judice could not be reopened. In terms of Umadevi, a distinction will have to be kept in mind between irregular appointments and illegal ones in view of the directions in para 44 to para 46, and thus a distinction would also have to be kept in mind between regularization and giving permanency. 17. Though Casteribe is a case arising out of industrial adjudication on a complaint made by the Union of workers that the affected employees were engaged by the Corporation as casual labourers for cleaning the buses between 198-1985 but the contested issue before the labour tribunal was whether the workers could be granted the status of permanency on par with other permanent cleaners. The Industrial Court, Bombay held that the complaint regarding unfair labour practice against the Corporation under Item 6 of Schedule IV was not maintainable. However, the complaints were maintainable in respect of the unfair labour practice under items 5, 9 and 10. A finding was returned that unfair labour practice has been committed under items 5 and 9 of schedule IV, Section 30 of the Maharashtra State Act empowers the Industrial and the Labour Courts to decide on any person named in the complaint if he has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labour practice. It may in its order give declarations and directions accordingly. Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the MRTU & PULP Acts need to be seen. They read:- “5. To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2083 1. To employ employees as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. 9. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.” 18. Item 6 of Schedule IV is identical to Entry 10 of the 5th Schedule to the Central Act and, therefore, would suffer common interpretation. The expression “unfair labour practice” in Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is defined to mean any of the practices specified in the 5th Schedule. It may be noted that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not contain a provision like Section 30 of the MRTU & PULP Act in Maharashtra. Unfair labour practice in the Central Act are placed in Chapter VC. Section 25T and 25U deal with prohibition and penalty for committing unfair labour practice. Thus, there is a complete statutory prohibition against an employer, workmen or trade union against committing an unfair labour practice. Though the consequences of violating the provisions of Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act is punishment with imprisonment but that does not mean that the Labour Court is barred to exercise its powers of making declarations and issuing directions where a prima facie case is made out of violation of the law. In fact, Entry 10 of the 5th schedule is a rule against exploitation. It is a rule against modern day slavery and against unfair domination. Unfair labour practice is akin to unfair discrimination. They both belong to the same family. Entry 10 of the Central Act and Entry 6 of the Maharashtra Act pre-supposes that a body of workers under the same employer and doing the same thing are permanent while others not. Unfair labour practice would thus fall in the same cluster of grounds of challenge of administrative action as those when the Writ Court deals with in cases of malafides, malice in law, malice in fact, bias, colourable exercise or power or abuse of authority and so on and so forth. Merely because the Central Act does not contain specific provisions such as those in MRTU & PULP Act and of Section 30 thereof, it would not denude this Tribunal to remove unfair discrimination whenever found in the light of discussion of Casteribe case. 19. It is a settled law that in order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as temporary or casual and continuing them for years with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to regular workmen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durgapur Casual Workers Union and Oths. Vs. Food Corporation of India, Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2014, dated 09.12.2014, has held that continued casualisation of service of workman amounts to unfair labour practice. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that management was rightly directed by the Tribunal to absorb the workman. In the case of The workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., arising out of Civil Appeal No.1600 of 2005 dated 27.01.2006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the casual labour and work charged employees has held that if a casual labours work continuously of 2-3 years regular need of the service is presumed. Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is made for the settlement of Industrial Disputes and for certain other provisions mentioned therein. The Act prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Paychayat Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, arising out of Civil Appeal No.3209-3210/2015, dated 27.03.2015. In this case, the order of Tribunal for regularization of Safai workers has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others versus State of Jharkhand & others, civil appeal nos.7423- 7429 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.19832-19838 of 2017), has held that the Regularization Rules must be given pragmative interpretation and order for regularization for those employees who has rendered service of 10 years or more from the date of the promulgation of the Regularization Rules unless there is same valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc. Claimants/workmen are rendering their services for more than 15 years as casual assignees uninterruptedly without regularization which amounts unfair labour practice of the Act. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others versus State of Jharkhand & others, civil appeal nos.7423-7429 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.19832-19838 of2084 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2017) observed that the purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi was two-fold: To prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The Apex Court observed that the fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. The Apex Court held that this is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid. 21. So far as the case laws relied by the learned counsel of the NIT-Kurukshetra in the case of V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India, CW No.1393 of 1996, decided on 31.08.2001, MMTC Ltd. Vs. The Learned Fourth Industrial Tribunal and others, 2014 SCC Online Cal 17668(2015) 144 FLR 484 as well as in the case of Yogesh Tyagi and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.17206 of 2014(O&M), decided on 31.05.2018 are concerned, the facts of the above mentioned cases are already distinguishable because of the fact that workers engaged in different establishments in the above mentioned cases are held not to an employee of the establishment and there does not exists relationship of employer and employee as such, NIT-Kurukshetra is not liable to get the benefit of these cases. 22. The case law relied by the learned counsel of the claimant-union in the case of Paimal Chandra Raha Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1995(Supp.) 2 SCC 611, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question relating to the status of the employees work in the canteen and has held that the canteen workers are employees of the corporation elaborating the principle in para 31 of the judgment where it is held that canteen services is essential for the efficiency working of the employees/officials of the corporation. Although the supervising and managing committee of the canteen has changed from time to time but the workers have remained constant. In the case of Gujarat Agricultural University Vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the correctness of judgment given by the Allahabad High Court to treat them as employees of the university and regular their services has upheld the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court the regulations framed by it has observed as under:- 23. It is pertinent to mention that in case of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (1020) 3 SCC 192, a sea change was brought about by a quick series of judgments with Harjinder Singh in the lead. The Court's deep anguish in Courts contributing to emasculating the original scheme of labour laws could not have been expressed with greater pathos than in para. 30-31 which observations are significant in the present context and can be profitably mentioned as follows:- "30. Of late, there has been a visible shift in the courts approach in dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social welfare legislations. The attractive mantras of globalization and liberalisation are fast becoming the raison d'etre of the judicial process and an impression has been created that the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards the plight of industrial and unorganized workers. In large number of cases like the Kumar Paritosh 2014.05.28 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10017 of 2011 and connected petitions 66 present one, relief has been denied to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who are illegally retrenched from service by creating by-lanes and side-lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial employment/engagement of the workman- employee was contrary to some or the other statute or that reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2085 31. It need no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his fundamental and constitutional rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. Therefore, the approach of the courts must be compatible with the constitutional philosophy of which the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute an integral part and justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forward by the employer - public or private." 24. In our opinion, the ratio of above noted judgment is clearly applicable to the case of claimants- union. It is undisputed position that as on the date of filing of the claim petition, they have completed more than 10 to 30 years of services as Supervisor, Head Cook, Assistant Cook, Cook, Counterman, Lady Attendant, Waiter, Common Room Attendant, Chapati Man, Kitchen Man, Sweeper, Pantry Man etc. Therefore, there could be no justification to deny them the benefit of the policy of regularization on the ground that they were paid out of the student’s fund. 25. In view of the above factual and legal preposition and evidence on record and in view of my aforesaid finding, claimants/workmen numbering 250 as mentioned in the list attached with the claim petition deserve regularization. Hence, management of NIT-Kurukshetra is directed to regularize the workmen/claimants to the grade of lowest-rank-employees of the NIT-Kurukshetra in the regular pay scale from the date of completion of 10 years from their joining, with all consequential benefits. The award is passed accordingly. 26. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947. A.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 802.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार मेससा सेंरल वे रिाउनसंग कॉपोरेशन, नई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री राज पाल (इलेजक्रजि न) के बीच अनुबिं म ें वनर्दष्टा औद्योवगक वििाद म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय-1, नई ददल्ली पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 260/2015) को प्रकावशत करती ि ै । [फा. स.ं Z-16025/4/2021-IR(M)] डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 17th November, 2021 S.O. 802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 260/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and Shri Raj Pal (Electrician). [F. No. Z-16025/4/2021-IR(M)] D. GUHA, Under Secy. ANNEXURE Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi. Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.2086 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 260/2015 Date of Passing Award- 01.11.2021 Between: Shri Raj Pal (Electrician), S/o Shri Hori Lal, R/o H. No. 198, 3rd Floor, Sant Nagar, Near East of Kailash, New Delhi-110062. ……….…Workman Versus 1. The Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, (A Govt of India Undertaking), 4/1 Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016. 2. Executive Engineer, Central warehousing Corporation, (A Govt of India Undertaking), “Construction Cell” SCOPE Minar Core-3, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi-110092. ……….Managements Appearances:- Shri Y. K Prasad For the Workman. (A/R) Shri Rajesh Sherawat For the Management (A/R) AWARD This is an application filed by the claimant invoking the provisions of section 2A of Id Act 1947 seeking remedy against his alleged illegal termination by the management. The facts pleaded by the claimant in short is that he was working as a daily wager in the Central Warehousing Corporation since 10-15 years before his termination and reporting to the Executive Engineer of Management No. 1 who is the management No.2 in this proceeding. He was discharging the work of helper and the management was assuring him of regularization of his service against the sanctioned post of Electrician, helper and Pump Operator. The management was adopting unfair labour practice by not providing appointment letter to the claimant. Not only that he was not made a member of ESI, EPF etc by the management. Being aggrieved the claimant was often raising demand in this regard. In May 2015 the claimant came to know that the management instead of regularizing his service in view of his long tenure of service rendered, had floated tenders for engagement of Pump Operator, Electrician, helper, plumber and carpenter through contractors. When the claimant sought legal advice he was asked to obtain information under RTI with regard to the employment policy of the management. Though, the application in this regard was filed and received by the management, instead of providing the information the management became annoyed and caught hold of him and obtained his signature on some blank papers. He was threatened to be implicated in theft case by utilizing the said signed blank paper if he would attempt to take any legal action against the management. The claimant having no other remedy lodged a complaint at the local Police Station. While Police took no action the management in a move of vindication, on the next date prevented the claimant from entering into the premises of the management having the effect of oral, illegal termination. The representation made by the claimant to the higher authorities of the management was not considered. Thus, the claimant filed a writ petition before the High Court which[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2087 was later on withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. The subsequent application under RTI Act filed by the claimant for supply of the recruitment rule also remained pending. The claimant thus, filed the second writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court which was again dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The claimant thereafter approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer where conciliation proceeding was taken up but no fruitful result could be achieved. The conciliation officer provided a failure report to the claimant. Hence, the present claim petition has been filed with a prayer to declare the act of the management orally terminating the service of the claimant as illegal, arbitrary unjustified and a direction to reinstate him into service with full back wages and all consequential benefits. The management CWC filed written statement refutting all the stands taken by the claimant. While denying the employer employee relationship between them it has been stated that the claimant was never under the employment of the management. That being the position the occasion of terminating his service never arose. While denying claimants claim that he was serving for the management for 10-15 years it has been stated that the claimant has cunningly not mentioned the date of his appointment. It has been specifically stated that the management gets the petty works done by inviting quotation from the open market and award the work to the party quoting the lowest price. This workman Tej Pal was awarded the contract for carrying out jobs of the respondent on the rates quoted by him and the bills raised by him were paid after proper scrutiny of the same by the officials of the management. While vehemently denying the stand of the claimant as an employee, the management has stated that the claimant neither posses the requisite qualification nor he was ever working under the supervision and control of the management. Some documents to deny the stand of the claimant has been filed. While denying the stand of the claimant as a daily wager for 15 years under the management, the later has pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition as unfounded and not maintainable. The claimant has filed replication to the written statement stating therein that the management being in possession of all the documents has taken undue advantage of the same. All the records have been manipulated to show the claimant as a contractor instead of an employee though he was discharging the duty of a daily wager and the work done by him was perennial in nature. Now that the management is attempting to remove him and engage fresh daily wager through contractor ignoring his long period of service, the same amounts to unfair labour practice. On these rivals pleading the following issues were framed for adjudication. ISSUES 1. Whether the verbal termination of service of the workman is illegal and unjustified. 2. Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages as alleged. The claimant examined himself as WW1and proved a series of documents marked as exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/8. These documents include the photocopy of the Muster Roll the application filed under RTI seeking information on the recruitment rules, a series of handwritten orders permitting the claimant and others to enter into the premises of the management on holidays to execute different works, the representation given to the higher authority requesting regularization of service, photocopies of the cheques of different dates to prove that he was getting salary from the Executive Engineer and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in two different writ petitions permitting the claimant to raise a dispute before this tribunal. The management examined one of its Executive Engineer as MW1 who also proved documents marked as MW1/1 to MW1/6. These documents filed by the management are the work order issued to the claimant for execution of work the bills raised by the claimant on completion of work and photocopy of the ledger account showing payment made to the claimant as per the bills raised by him. At the outset of the argument the Ld. Counsel for the management submitted that the moot question to be decided in this proceeding is the claim challenging the illegal termination. Since, appointment precedes termination, the tribunal in order to decide issue no.1 has to decide incidentally the employer and employee relationship between the parties. Unless the same is decided the relief2088 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] sought by the claimant cannot be granted. The Ld. Counsel for the management further argued that the pleadings and the documents filed by the claimant no way proves the employer and employee relationship between the management and the claimant. To buttress his submission he submitted that the document filed by the management outright disproves the claim of the claimant and this tribunal has to take into consideration the documents for deciding the dispute. On the contrary the Ld. A/R for the claimant submitted, that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant clearly proves that he had worked for 10-15 years for the management preceding his illegal termination. It is the case of the claimant that no appointment letter was ever handed over to him. The management being in possession of the documents has manipulated certain documents to the disadvantage of the claimant. Issue No.1 The workman examined as WW1 has filed affidavit stating that he was engaged directly by the management for discharging the work of a helper. No appointment letter was issued nor the benefits of EPF and ESI where extended to him. He was often raising objection for the same which had caused annoyance in the mind of the employer ie. the management. He has thereby specifically denied the stand of the management that he was a contractor engaged by the management for discharge of a petty work. To support his stand he has filed several gate pass and photocopy of the muster roll and photocopy of the cheques towards the payment made to him by the Executive Engineer CWC. These documents have been objected by the management as not relevant for proving the issue. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the burden of proving the employer and employee relationship lies with the party who asserts existence of the same. It is also a decided Principle of law that the person claiming temporary status of employee has to prove that he had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year for the management preceding to his termination. In this case since the claimant is asserting about the said relationship, no doubt the burden is on him to prove the same. Admittedly the claimant has not filed any appointment letter and his claim solenly rest on the photocopies of the Muster roll and cheques showing payment to him by the Executive Engineer CWC. In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001) 7SCC Page 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao vs. State of MP (1958(II)LLJ252) the Apex court ruled that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients (i)Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The employer is one who employees or engages the service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. 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. Again in the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001)7SCCPage1 the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective Control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with the management. In this case the claimant in his oral testimony has not whispered a word about the effective control exercised by the management on the workman for the works discharge by him. Furthermore the muster rolls filed by the claimant (Photocopy) are for the period 01/07/2013 to 10/04/2015. No other document has been filed to prove the claim of the claimant that he had work for 10 to 15 years for the management preceding to his alleged termination. Moreover the scrutiny of the Muster roll which though contains the name of the claimant do not prove that he had worked for 240 days or more in the calendar year preceding to his termination. The Ld. A/R for the claimant drew the attention of the tribunal to the certificate appended to the Muster Roll and signed by the Assistant Engineer certifying that the workers mentioned in the Muster Roll where actually employed by him on corporation work and submitted that this is the document of the management which proves the employer employee relationship. He also drew the attention to the photocopies of the cheques of different dates to say that the claimant was getting remuneration from the management for the work done. But few pages of the Muster Roll and an isolated cheque cannot prove the relationship between the management and the claimant as employer and employee. On the contrary the management has taken a specific stand by filing documents to show that the Executive Engineer CWC is authorized to get the petty work done by inviting quotation from the open market and award the work to the person quoting the lowest rate. This claimant was awarded the contract for carrying out jobs as per the rates[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2089 quoted by him. A document has been filed by the management which is a contract issued by the Executive Engineer of CWC to the claimant on 06.01.2009 and the document has been marked as MW1/1. Several bills have also been filed pursuant to this contract raised by the claimant Raj Pal with his signature and countersigned by the officials of CWC after verification giving a certificate about the work done as per the specification. The management has also filed photocopies of the ledger account showing payment made to the claimant in accordance to the bill raised by him and sanctioned by the management. The gate passes filed by him no way helps proving the claim of the claimant since those where specifically to facilitate entry of the claimant with his men into the premises of CWC during holidays. The Ld. Counsel for the management on the basis of these gate passes argued that the claimant was never an employee of the management. Had he been an employee there would not have been any necessity of specific gate pass to facilitate his entry into the premises on holidays. Thus, from the evidence on record it is held that the claimant has not succeeded in proving his relationship with the management as employer and employee. Control of the management is a necessary element to prove the master servant relationship but here is a case where there is no evidence at all to prove this aspect of the claim. Except the bald statement that the claimant was the employee for 10-15 years there is absolutely no evidence to rebut the contention of the management. Once the employer employee relationship is not established the allegation of the claimant that the verbal termination of the service of the workman is illegal and he has became a victim of unfair labour practice appears unfounded and baseless. The evidence on record adduced by the management through oral statement and documents clearly disproves the claim of the claimant. This issue is accordingly decided against the claimant. ISSUE. No.2 In view of the finding arrived in respect of the issue no.1 the workman is held not entitled to reinstatement with full back wages as claimed by him. This issue is accordingly answered against the claimant. Hence, ordered. ORDER The claim be and the same is dismissed on contest. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. Dictated & Corrected by me. Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 803.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार मेससा डाला सीमेंट फैक्ट्री, सोनभद्र, उ.प्र.के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री उत्तम कुमार वमश्रा, जनरल सेक्रेटरी के बीच अनुबंि म ें वनर्दष्टा औद्योवगक वििाद म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एि ं श्रम न्द्यायालय, कानपुर पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 140/2019) को प्रकावशत करती ि ै । [फा. स.ं Z-16025/3/2021-IR(M)] डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 17th November, 2021 S.O. 803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s Dala Cement Factory, Sonbhadra, U.P. and Shri Uttam Kumar Mishra, General Sercetary. [F. No. Z-16025/3/2021-IR(M)] D. GUHA, Under Secy.2090 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT KANPUR Present: Soma Shekhar Jena, HJS (Retd.) I.D. No. 140 of 2019 Between Uttam Kumar Mishra, General Secretary, Dala Cement Factory Shramik Sangh, Sonebhaddra, Uttar Pradesh. And Factory Manager, Dala Cement Factory, Sonbhadra, U.P. AWARD U/s 33-A of I.D. Act The claimant workman Uttam Kumar Mishra, General Secretary, Dala Cement filed an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for adjudication. The claim statement of claimant workman may be summarized as follows:- As per the claim statement already a case with ID No. 60 of 2018 is in process in which claim statement is also filed. During the course of the aforementioned case the O.P. Dala Cement Factory put pressure on claimant workers and persuaded them with the proposal of salary hike. The described modus operandi and the gimmick of the management of Dala Cement Factory is illegal as it is against the spirit of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. Not only did the management offer different rates of salary hike in the range of rupees one thousand(Rs 1,000) to three thousand(Rs 3,000) to the claimant workmen but also settled the salary hike of some workmen. This act of the management is done with the unholy and malicious intention to preclude the claimant workmen from getting justice. The management offered the salary hike with such malicious and diabolical conditions that the real objective and spirit of the case will be defeated. The claimant workmen pleaded before the management of Dala Cement Factory for equal pay for equal work which will not affect the ongoing case but the management was reluctant towards the demand. Hence as the aforementioned discriminatory practice of the management of the Dala Cement Factory is against the Labour practice. It is prayed by the claimant workmen before the Hon’ble Tribunal to stop the ongoing unfair practice of the management of the Dala Cement. On behalf of the O.P management preliminary objection against maintainability of the claims of the Union were raised on the ground that the industrial dispute can only be raised as per Industrial Disputes Act It is further pleaded on behalf of the O.P management no specific name of the employee has been mentioned in the complaint petition and the entire complaint does not reveal any change of the condition of service enunciated under section 9A and schedule 4 of Industrial Disputes Act. When the matter was taken for hearing on behalf of the Dala Cement factory shramik sangh one memo supported with an affidavit was filed intimating the reluctance of the workman to proceed with the claims. In view of the affidavit and in larger interest of Industrial peace and cordial relationship in Industrial relation the dispute is disposed of as not pressed. Parties are left to bear their respective costs. SOMA SHEKHAR JENA, Presiding Officer[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2091 नई दिल्ली, 17 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 804.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार मेससा सेंरळ वे रिाउनसंग कॉपोरेशन, नई ददल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री मविपाल हसंि के बीच अनुबंि म ें वनर्दष्टा औद्योवगक वििाद म ें केन्द्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एि ं श्रम न्द्यायालय-1, नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 261/2015) को प्रकावशत करती ि ै । [फा. स.ं Z-16025/4/2021-IR(M)] डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 17th November, 2021 S.O. 804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 261/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and Shri Mahipal Singh. [F. No. Z-16025/4/2021-IR(M)] D. GUHA, Under Secy. ANNEXURE Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi. Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 261/2015 Date of Passing Award- 01.11.2021 Between: Shri Mahipal Singh, S/o Shri Dharma, R/o H. No. 37-A, Gali No.2, New Basti Devli Village, New Delhi-110062. ……….…Workman Versus 3. The Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, (A Govt of India Undertaking), 4/1 Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016. 4. Executive Engineer, Central warehousing Corporation, (A Govt of India Undertaking), “Construction Cell” SCOPE Minar Core-3, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi-110092. ……Managements2092 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearances:- Shri Y. K Prasad For the Workman. (A/R) Shri Rajesh Sherawat For the Management (A/R) AWARD This is an application filed by the claimant invoking the provisions of section 2A of Id Act 1947 seeking remedy against his alleged illegal termination by the management. The facts pleaded by the claimant in short is that he was working as a daily wager in the Central Warehousing Corporation since 10-15 years before his termination and reporting to the executive Engineer of Management No. 1 who is the management No.2 in this proceeding. He was discharging the work of helper and the management was assuring him of regularization of his service against the sanctioned post of Electrician, helper and Pump Operator. The management was adopting unfair labour practice by not providing appointment letter to the claimant. Not only that he was not made a member of ESI, EPF etc by the management. Being aggrieved the claimant was often raising demand in this regard. In May 2015 the claimant came to know that the management instead of regularizing his service in view of his long tenure of service rendered, had floated tenders for engagement of Pump Operator, Electrician, helper, plumber and carpenter through contractors. When the claimant sought legal advice he was asked to obtain information under RTI with regard to the employment policy of the management. Though, the application in this regard was filed and received by the management, instead of providing the information the management became annoyed and caught hold of him and obtained his signature on some blank papers. He was threatened to be implicated in theft case by utilizing the said signed blank paper if he would attempt to take any legal action against the management. The claimant having no other remedy lodged a complaint at the local Police Station. While Police took no action the management in a move of vindication on the next date prevented the claimant from entering into the premises of the management having the effect of oral illegal terminated. The representation made by the claimant to the higher authorities of the management was not considered. Thus, the claimant filed a writ petition before the High Court which was later on withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. The subsequent application under RTI Act filed by the claimant for supply of the recruitment rule also remained pending. The claimant thus, filed the second writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court which was again dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The claimant thereafter approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer where conciliation proceeding was taken up but no fruitful result could be achieved. The conciliation officer provided a failure report to the claimant. Hence, the present claim petition has been filed with a prayer to declare the act of the management orally terminating the service of the claimant as illegal, arbitrary unjustified and a direction to reinstate him into service with full back wages and all consequential benefits. The management CWC filed written statement refutting all the stands taken by the claimant. While denying the employer employee relationship between them it has been stated that the claimant was never under the employment of the management. That being the position the occasion of terminating his service never arose. While denying claimants claim that he was serving for the management for 10-15 years it has been stated that the claimant has cunningly not mentioned the date of his appointment. It has been specifically stated that the management gets the petty works done by inviting quotation from the open market and award the work to the party quoting the lowest price. This workman Mahipal was awarded the contract for carring out jobs of the respondent on the rates quoted by him and the bills raised by him were paid after proper scrutiny of the same by the officials of the management. While vehemently denying the stand of the claimant as an employee the management has stated that the claimant neither possess the requisite qualification nor he was ever working under the supervision and control of the management. Some document to deny the stand of the claimant has been filed. While denying the stand of the claimant as a daily wager for 15 years[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2093 under the management, the later has pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition as unfounded and not maintainable. The claimant has filed replication to the written statement stating therein that the management being in possession of all the documents has taken undue advantage of the same. All the records have been manipulated to show the claimant as a contractor instead of an employee though he was discharging the duty of a daily wager and the work done by him was perennial in nature. Now that the management is attempting to remove him and engage fresh daily wager through contractor ignoring his long period of service, the same amounts to unfair labour practice. On these rivals pleading the following issues were framed for adjudication. ISSUES 1. Whether the verbal termination of service of the workman is illegal and unjustified. 2. Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages as alleged. The claimant examined himself as WW1and proved a series of documents marked as exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/7. These documents include the photocopy of the Muster Roll the application filed under RTI seeking information on the recruitment rules, a series of handwritten orders permitting the claimant and others to enter into the premises of the management on holidays to execute different works, the representation given to the higher authority requesting regularization of service, photocopies of the cheques of different dates to prove that he was getting salary from the executive Engineer and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in two different writ petitions permitting the claimant to raise a dispute before this tribunal. The management examined one of its Executive Engineer as MW1 who also proved documents marked as MW1/1 to MW1/3. These documents filed by the management are the work order issued to the claimant for execution of work the bills raised by the claimant on completion of work and photocopy of the ledger account showing payment made to the claimant as per the bills raised by him. At the outset of the argument the Ld. Counsel for the management submitted that the moot question to be decided in this proceeding is the claim challenging the illegal termination. Since, appointment precedes termination, the tribunal in order to decide issue no.1 has to decide incidentally the employer and employee relationship between the parties. Unless the same is decided the relief sought by the claimant cannot be granted. The Ld. Counsel for the management further argued that the pleading and the documents filed by the claimant no way proves the employer and employee relationship between the management and the claimant. To buttress his submission he submitted that the document filed by the management outright disproves the claim of the claimant and this tribunal has to take into consideration the documents for deciding the dispute. On the contrary the Ld. A/R for the claimant submitted, that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant clearly proves that he had worked for 10-15 years for the management preceding his illegal termination. It is the case of the claimant that no appointment letter was ever handed over to him. The management being in possession of the documents has manipulated certain documents to the disadvantage of the claimant. Issue No. 1 The workman examined as WW1 has filed affidavit stating that he was engaged directly by the management for discharging the work of a helper no appointment letter was issued nor the benefits of EPF and ESI where extended to him. He was often raising objection for the same which had caused annoyance in the mind of the employer ie. the management. He has thereby specifically denied the stand of the management that he was a contractor engaged by the management for discharge of a petty work. To support his stand he has filed several gate pass and photocopy of the muster roll and photocopy of the cheques towards the payment made to him by the Executive Engineer CWC. These documents have been objected by the management as not relevant for proving the issue. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the burden of proving the employer and employee relationship lies with the party who asserts existence of the same. In this case since the2094 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] claimant is asserting about the said relationship, no doubt the burden is on him to prove the same. Admittedly the claimant has not filed any appointment letter and his claim solenly rest on the photocopies of the Muster roll and cheques showing payment to him by the executive Engineer CWC. In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001) 7SCC Page 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao vs. State of MP (1958(II)LLJ252) the Apex court ruled that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients (i)Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The employer is one who employees or engages the service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. 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. Again in the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001)7SCCPage1 the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective Control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with the management. In this case the claimant in his oral testimony has not whispered a word about the effective control exercised by the management on the workman for the works discharge by him. On the contrary the management has taken a specific stand by filing documents to show that the executive engineer CWC is authorized to get the petty work done by inviting quotation from the open market and award the work to the person quoting the lowest rate. This claimant was awarded the contract for carrying out jobs as per the rates quoted by him. A document has been filed by the management which is a contract issued by the Executive Engineer of CWC to the claimant on 23.09.2013 and the document has been marked as MW1/1. Several bills have also been filed pursuant to this contract raised by the claimant Mahipal with his signature and countersigned by the officials of CWC after verification giving a certificate about the work done as per the specification. The management has also filed photocopies of the ledger account showing payment made to the claimant in accordance to the bill raised by him and sanctioned by the management. On the contrary the muster roll filed by the claimant nowhere contains his name. The gate passes filed by him no way helps proving the claim of the claimant since those where specifically to facilitate entry of the claimant with his men into the premises of CWC during holidays. The Ld. Counsel for the management on the basis of these gate passes argued that the claimant was never an employee of the management. Had he been an employee there would not have been any necessity of specific gate pass to facilitate his entry into the premises on holidays. Thus, from the evidence on record it is held that the claimant has not succeeded in proving his relationship with the management as employer and employee. Control of the management is a necessary element to prove the master servant relationship but here is a case where there is no evidence at all to prove this aspect of the claim. Except the bald statement that the claimant was the employee for 10-15 years there is absolutely no evidence to rebut the contention of the management. Once the employer employee relationship is not established the allegation of the claimant that the verbal termination of the service of the workman is illegal and he has became a victim of unfair labour practice appears unfounded and baseless. The evidence on record adduced by the management through oral statement and documents clearly disproves the claim of the claimant. This issue is accordingly decided against the claimant. Issue. No. 2 In view of the finding arrived in respect of the issue no.1 the workman is held not entitled to reinstatement with full back wages as claimed by him. This issue is accordingly answered against the claimant. Hence, ordered. ORDER The claim be and the same is dismissed on contest. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. Dictated & Corrected by me. Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2095 नई दिल्ली, 17 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 805.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरणिं म ें केन्द्री सरकार मेससि एक्सृो ि क्रेजड गारं ी कॉरृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजम ेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कामगार के बीच अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टि औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरणिं एव ं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, मुंबई ृंचा (संिभ ि सं्‍ ा 21/2019) को प्रकाजित करती ि ज। [फा. स.ं L-17011/6/2019-IR(M) डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 17th November, 2021 S.O. 805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Their Workmen. [F. No. L-17011/6/2019-IR(M] D. GUHA, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI Present: Justice RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/21/2019 Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited And Their workmen Appearances: For the Management: : Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. For the Union : Absent State : Maharashtra Mumbai, dated the 18th day of October, 2021. AWARD 1. The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order dated 26/07/2019 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under: “ Whether the demand vide letter dated 8.6.2017 of Bharatiya Vima Karmachari Sena Mahasangh in respect of casual workers of Expert Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, for (1) Revision of wages, (2) Annual Increment (3) Salary for Saturday & Gazetted Holiday (4) Grant of Casual Leave & Earned Leave (5) Loan & Meal Coupons (6) Term Insurance, is fair, legal & justified? If so,k what relief these casual workers are entitled to? What other directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”2096 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The above reference was referred to this Tribunal in 2019. Notice issued to the second party were duly served and acknowledgement cards received back. 3. Counsel for M/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited, has filed an application dated 24/06/2021 & 14/10/2021 for disposal of the reference as none is appearing for workman. 4. It is observed that statement of claim has not been filed since last 3 years. It seems that no industrial dispute presently exists between n the parties and the workman is not interested in pressing the case. 5. Hence the reference is disposed off by following order. ORDER There is no dispute between the parties hence the reference is disposed off by passing no dispute award. Justice R.N. KAKKAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 निम्बर, 2021 का.आ. 806.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरणिं म ें केन्द्री सरकार मेससि सेंरळ वे रिाउनसंग कॉृवोकरेिन, नई दिल्ली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ृंच िवे साि (वा रमजन-कम-ृंृ ऑृरे र) के बीच अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टि औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्द्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरणिं एव ं श्रम न् ा ाल -1, नई दिल्ली ृंचा के (संिभि सं्‍ ा 262 /2015) को प्रकाजित करती ि ज। [फा. स.ं Z-16025/4/2021-IR(M) डी. गुिा, अवर सजचव New Delhi, the 17th November, 2021 S.O. 806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 262/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/s Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi and Shri Panch Dev Sah (Wireman-cum-pump operator). [F. No. Z-16025/4/2021-IR(M) D. GUHA, Under Secy. ANNEXURE Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi. Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 262/2015 Date of Passing Award- 01.11.2021 Between: Shri Panch Dev Sah (Wireman-cum-pump operator), S/o Shri Mahant Sah, R/o H. No. 8 Madangir Village, New Delhi-110062. …Workman Versus[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2097 1. The Managing Director, Central Warehousing Corporation, (A Govt of India Undertaking), 4/1 Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016. 2. Executive Engineer, Central warehousing Corporation, (A Govt of India Undertaking), “Construction Cell” SCOPE Minar Core-3, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, New Delhi-110092. …. Managements Appearances:- Shri Y. K Prasad For the Workman (A/R) Shri Rajesh Sherawat For the Management (A/R) AWARD This is an application filed by the claimant invoking the provisions of section 2A of Id Act 1947 seeking remedy against his alleged illegal termination by the management. The facts pleaded by the claimant in short is that he was working as a daily wager in the Central Warehousing Corporation since 10-15 years before his termination and reporting to the Executive Engineer of Management No. 1 who is the management No.2 in this proceeding. He was discharging the work of helper and the management was assuring him of regularization of his service against the sanctioned post of Electrician, helper and Pump Operator. The management was adopting unfair labour practice by not providing appointment letter to the claimant. Not only that he was not made a member of ESI, EPF etc by the management. Being aggrieved the claimant was often raising demand in this regard. In May 2015 the claimant came to know that the management instead of regularizing his service in view of his long tenure of service rendered, had floated tenders for engagement of Pump Operator, Electrician, helper, plumber and carpenter through contractors. When the claimant sought legal advice he was asked to obtain information under RTI with regard to the employment policy of the management. Though, the application in this regard was filed and received by the management, instead of providing the information the management became annoyed and caught hold of him and obtained his signature on some blank papers. He was threatened to be implicated in theft case by utilizing the said signed blank paper if he would attempt to take any legal action against the management. The claimant having no other remedy lodged a complaint at the local Police Station. While Police took no action the management in a move of vindication, on the next date prevented the claimant from entering into the premises of the management having the effect of oral, illegal termination. The representation made by the claimant to the higher authorities of the management was not considered. Thus, the claimant filed a writ petition before the High Court which was later on withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. The subsequent application under RTI Act filed by the claimant for supply of the recruitment rule also remained pending. The claimant thus, filed the second writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court which was again dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The claimant thereafter approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer where conciliation proceeding was taken up but no fruitful result could be achieved. The conciliation officer provided a failure report to the claimant. Hence, the present claim petition has been filed with a prayer to declare the act of the management orally terminating the service of the claimant as illegal, arbitrary unjustified and a direction to reinstate him into service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.2098 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The management CWC filed written statement refutting all the stands taken by the claimant. While denying the employer employee relationship between them it has been stated that the claimant was never under the employment of the management. That being the position the occasion of terminating his service never arose. While denying claimants claim that he was serving for the management for 10-15 years it has been stated that the claimant has cunningly not mentioned the date of his appointment. It has been specifically stated that the management gets the petty works done by inviting quotation from the open market and award the work to the party quoting the lowest price. This workman Panchdev Shah was awarded the contract for carrying out jobs of the respondent on the rates quoted by him and the bills raised by him were paid after proper scrutiny of the same by the officials of the management. While vehemently denying the stand of the claimant as an employee, the management has stated that the claimant neither posses the requisite qualification nor he was ever working under the supervision and control of the management. Some documents to deny the stand of the claimant has been filed. While denying the stand of the claimant as a daily wager for 15 years under the management, the later has pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition as unfounded and not maintainable. The claimant has filed replication to the written statement stating therein that the management being in possession of all the documents has taken undue advantage of the same. All the records have been manipulated to show the claimant as a contractor instead of an employee though he was discharging the duty of a daily wager and the work done by him was perennial in nature. Now that the management is attempting to remove him and engage fresh daily wager through contractor ignoring his long period of service, the same amounts to unfair labour practice. On these rivals pleading the following issues were framed for adjudication. ISSUES 1. Whether the verbal termination of service of the workman is illegal and unjustified. 2. Whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages as alleged. The claimant examined himself as WW1and proved a series of documents marked as exhibit WW1/1 to WW1/8. These documents include the photocopy of the Muster Roll the application filed under RTI seeking information on the recruitment rules, a series of handwritten orders permitting the claimant and others to enter into the premises of the management on holidays to execute different works, the representation given to the higher authority requesting regularization of service, photocopies of the cheques of different dates to prove that he was getting salary from the Executive Engineer and orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in two different writ petitions permitting the claimant to raise a dispute before this tribunal. The management examined one of its Executive Engineer as MW1 who also proved documents marked as MW1/1 to MW1/12. These documents filed by the management are the work order issued to the claimant for execution of work the bills raised by the claimant on completion of work and photocopy of the ledger account showing payment made to the claimant as per the bills raised by him. At the outset of the argument the Ld. Counsel for the management submitted that the moot question to be decided in this proceeding is the claim challenging the illegal termination. Since, appointment precedes termination, the tribunal in order to decide issue no.1 has to decide incidentally the employer and employee relationship between the parties. Unless the same is decided the relief sought by the claimant cannot be granted. The Ld. Counsel for the management further argued that the pleadings and the documents filed by the claimant no way proves the employer and employee relationship between the management and the claimant. To buttress his submission he submitted that the document filed by the management outright disproves the claim of the claimant and this tribunal has to take into consideration the documents for deciding the dispute. On the contrary the Ld. A/R for the claimant submitted, that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant clearly proves that he had worked for 10-15 years for the management preceding his illegal termination. It is the case of the claimant that no appointment letter was ever handed over to him. The management being in possession of the documents has manipulated certain documents to the disadvantage of the claimant.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : नवम् बर 20, 2021/कार्तिक 29, 1943 2099 Issue No. 1 The workman examined as WW1 has filed affidavit stating that he was engaged directly by the management for discharging the work of a helper. No appointment letter was issued nor the benefits of EPF and ESI where extended to him. He was often raising objection for the same which had caused annoyance in the mind of the employer ie. the management. He has thereby specifically denied the stand of the management that he was a contractor engaged by the management for discharge of a petty work. To support his stand he has filed several gate pass and photocopy of the muster roll and photocopy of the cheques towards the payment made to him by the Executive Engineer CWC. These documents have been objected by the management as not relevant for proving the issue. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the burden of proving the employer and employee relationship lies with the party who asserts existence of the same. It is also a decided Principle of law that the person claiming temporary status of employee has to prove that he had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year for the management preceding to his termination. In this case since the claimant is asserting about the said relationship, no doubt the burden is on him to prove the same. Admittedly the claimant has not filed any appointment letter and his claim solenly rest on the photocopies of the Muster roll and cheques showing payment to him by the Executive Engineer CWC. In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001) 7SCC Page 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao vs. State of MP (1958(II)LLJ252) the Apex court ruled that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients (i)Employer (ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The employer is one who employees or engages the service of other person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. 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. Again in the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in (2001)7SCCPage1 the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective Control test to ascertain about the relationship of the workman with the management. In this case the claimant in his oral testimony has not whispered a word about the effective control exercised by the management on the workman for the works discharge by him. Furthermore the muster rolls filed by the claimant (Photocopy) are for the period 01/07/2013 to 10/04/2015. No other document has been filed to prove the claim of the claimant that he had work for 10 to 15 years for the management preceding to his alleged termination. Moreover the scrutiny of the Muster roll which though contains the name of the claimant do not prove that he had worked for 240 days or more in the calendar year preceding to his termination. The Ld. A/R for the claimant drew the attention of the tribunal to the certificate appended to the Muster Roll and signed by the Assistant Engineer certifying that the workers mentioned in the Muster Roll where actually employed by him on corporation work and submitted that this is the document of the management which proves the employer employee relationship. He also drew the attention to the photocopies of the cheques of different dates to say that the claimant was getting remuneration from the management for the work done. But few pages of the Muster Roll and an isolated cheque cannot prove the relationship between the management and the claimant as employer and employee. On the contrary the management has taken a specific stand by filing documents to show that the Executive Engineer CWC is authorized to get the petty work done by inviting quotation from the open market and award the work to the person quoting the lowest rate. This claimant was awarded the contract for carrying out jobs as per the rates quoted by him. Several bills have also been filed pursuant to this contract raised by the claimant Panchdev Shah with his signature and countersigned by the officials of CWC after verification giving a certificate about the work done as per the specification. The management has also filed photocopies of the ledger account showing payment made to the claimant in accordance to the bill raised by him and sanctioned by the management. The gate passes filed by him no way helps proving the claim of the claimant since those where specifically to facilitate entry of the claimant with his men into the premises of CWC during holidays. The Ld. Counsel for the management on the basis of these gate passes argued that the claimant was never an employee of the management. Had he been an employee there would not have been any necessity of specific gate pass to facilitate his entry into the premises on holidays. Thus, from the evidence on record it is held that the claimant has not succeeded in proving his relationship with the management as employer and employee. Control of the management2100 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 20, 2021/KARTIKA 29, 1943 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] is a necessary element to prove the master servant relationship but here is a case where there is no evidence at all to prove this aspect of the claim. Except the bald statement that the claimant was the employee for 10-15 years there is absolutely no evidence to rebut the contention of the management. Once the employer employee relationship is not established the allegation of the claimant that the verbal termination of the service of the workman is illegal and he has became a victim of unfair labour practice appears unfounded and baseless. The evidence on record adduced by the management through oral statement and documents clearly disproves the claim of the claimant. This issue is accordingly decided against the claimant. Issue. No. 2 In view of the finding arrived in respect of the issue no.1 the workman is held not entitled to reinstatement with full back wages as claimed by him. This issue is accordingly answered against the claimant. Hence, ordered. ORDER The claim be and the same is dismissed on contest. Send a copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. Dictated & Corrected by me. Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.