1
wp2856.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2856 of 2004
Krushna Nagorao Lute,
Aged about 35 years,
R/o 69, Juna Subhedar Layout,
Extension Adarsha Mangal
Karyalaya, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Circuit Sitting at Nagpur.
2. Union of India,
Ministry of Labour,
Shram Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Office of the Provident Fund Commissioner,
132-A, Ridge Road, Sant Tukdoji
Maharaj Chowk, Nagpur. ... Respondents
Shri B.M. Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms U.R. Tanna, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
th Dated : 12 July, 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:32:36 ::: 2 wp2856.04.odt Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 26-9-2003 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 claiming status of regularization in service on the post of Electrician-cum-Peon on the basis of the Scheme called as "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India", brought into force with effect from 1-9-1993. The Tribunal records the finding that the petitioner had earlier filed Original Application No.1235 of 1994 claiming the same reliefs, which was dismissed on 28-6-1999 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization under the said Scheme, and the order rejecting the claim for such regularization was not challenged. It is also the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner got the employment in another Company and left the service voluntarily on 1-5-1994.
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:32:36 ::: 3
wp2856.04.odt
2. Shri Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited our attention to the certificate dated 7-1-1994 issued by the respondent No.2 certifying that the petitioner has been working in the office as Peon-cum-Electrician purely on temporary and daily wages basis since 28-10-1991 as and when required by the office. He has urged that the petitioner has established that he had been continuously working from 28-1-1991 to 1-5-1994, when he was terminated from service and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of acquiring temporary status in terms of Clause 4 of the Scheme, brought into force with effect from 1-9-1993. Shri Khan further submits that even the termination of the petitioner on 1-5-1994 was illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurishankar Vishwakarma v. Eagle Spring Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1994) III LLJ 689 (Bom.), to urge that for abandonment of service, it is necessary to hold an enquiry. He submits that the ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:32:36 ::: 4 wp2856.04.odt stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had abandoned the service on 1-5-1994 and, therefore, an enquiry was necessary in terms of the decision rendered in the case Gaurishankar Vishwakarma, cited supra.
3. The claim for regularization is based upon Clause 4(i) of the Scheme, brought into force with effect from 1-9-1993. The said Clause is reproduced below :
"4. Temporary status
i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of atleast one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of atleast 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week)."
As per the aforesaid provision, a temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers, who were in employment on the date of issuance of office memorandum and who had rendered continuous service of atleast one year, which means ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:32:36 ::: 5 wp2856.04.odt that they must have been engaged for a period of atleast 240 days (observing 5 days' week). Perusal of the certificate dated 7-1-1994 produced on record, does not disclose that the petitioner was continuously working from 28-10-1991 without any break in service. The said certificate shows that the petitioner was working as daily wager from 28-10-1991 as and when required by the office. There is a non-compliance of Clause 4(1) of the said Scheme, reproduced above, and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the said clause. The representation of the petitioner for grant of benefit under the said clause has been rejected and it has not been challenged by the petitioner. The claim for regularization was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
4. Even if we ignore the stand of the respondents that the petitioner himself abandoned the service on 1-5-1994, there is no case made out in the Original Application that the termination on 1-5-1994 was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, as we read in the Original Application filed ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:32:36 ::: 6 wp2856.04.odt before the Tribunal, we will find that the said Original Application is for regularization of the services of the petitioner and not for challenging the termination on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. In view of above, we do not find any substance in this petition. The same is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Lanjewar
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:32:36 :::