1 RRN,J
WP No.18764 of 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESWAR RAO
W.P NO. 18764 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to pass an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 for non-implementation of guidelines of the Department of Telecommunications Rules after completion of 240 days yearly and the Supreme Courts Judgments, order dated 01.08.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P (Civil) Nos. 19832-19838 of 2017) for service 10 years, in spite of representation dated 24.09.2018, the same is rejected by the respondent no.3 vide Lr.No.E-4/HRD/KAA/CAT MAZ/2018-19/4 dated 15.10.2018 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he has been working as a casual mazdoor since 01.02.1986 in the office the 4th respondent. He is eligible for getting Temporary Status Mazdoor as per the order Lr.No.271-13/92/STN dt.22.10.1992 w.e.f. 17.12.1993. But, the respondent No.3 till filing of Writ Petition has not considered his case for Temporary Status Mazdoor, due to 2 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 which, he lost his financial benefits and increments from the year 1993. The respondents instead of continuing petitioner's services and conferring the benefits like temporary status and regularization of service, terminated his services during the year 1998 on the ground that he has submitted bogus work days certificates in support of work done by him. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A.No.1046 of 1993 and the Tribunal gave directing to the 2nd respondent to re-enquire into the matter and continue the petitioner in the services.
2.1 It is the further contention of the petitioner that as per the orders of the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent conducted enquiry and issued Inquiry report dt.18.07.1997 and gave one month termination notice dt.24.07.1998. As such, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.24018 of 1998 and one Ch. Subba Reddy also filed W.P.No.23456 of 1998 and this Court initially passed interim orders directing continuation of their services and finally disposed of the Writ Petition No.24018 of 1998 along with W.P. No.23456 of 3 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 1998 by way of common order on 22-11-2000 directing the respondents "...to engage the petitioners afresh as casual labourers from the date of order and pay them the wages and other emoluments payable to the casual labourers. Regarding regulation of these petitioners, it shall depend upon the future exigency, any scheme to be launched by the management, the suitable of the workmen etc.," 2.2. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Department of Telecom Service issued a letter No.269-94/98-STN- II, dt.29.09.2000 for regularization of casual labourers. In view of the said letter dated 29.09.2000, he along with one Ch. Subba Reddy has submitted application for regularization of services, but the respondents not considered the petitioner's application, whereas they have considered the application of Ch. Subba Reddy as regular Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.10.2000, but both the cases were similar as per this Court order dt.22.11.2000 in Writ Petition Nos.24018 of 1998 and W.P. No.23456 of 1998. The respondent No.2 while rejecting the case of the petitioner stated that this Court 4 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 has not considered the old services, whereas he is senior to Ch. Subba Reddy.
2.3 It is the further contention of the petitioner that the in spite of several representations dt.08.11.1995, 26.11.1996, 14.05.1998 and finally on 24.09.2018 for promotion, but the same was not considered by the respondents. However, the respondent No.3 forwarded his (petitioner) eligibility conditions for the scheme of Temporary Status Mazdoor (T.S.M) order dt.01.08.1998, through his letter dt.08.05.2003 stating that he is engaged on 01.02.1986 and working continuously and completed 240 days in a year before 01.08.1998 with no break and he is eligible to get Temporary Status Mazdoor (T.S.M) before 01.08.1998. However, the respondents failed to consider his case. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner was initially engaged as casual mazdoor in their Department from 01.02.1986 and he worked in Karimnagar sub division up to May 1987 with break periods. From June 1987 to December 1988 and he did not work anywhere. At 5 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 the time of his re-entry i.e. on 01.01.1989 the petitioner submitted days, particulars that he worked in Railway Electrification Project (REP) from 6/1987 to 12/1988. The days record submitted by the petitioner regarding REP works i.e. from 1/1985 to 1/1986 (1 year) and from 6/1987 to 12/1988 (1 ½ years) has been sent to REP authorities concerned for verification along with the other candidates who produced REP days record. In that enquiry, it is proved that all the mazdoors including the petitioner has submitted false and fake days record to cover their considerable gap in their past rendered service. In view of the enquiry, all these casual mazdoor who submitted false records, were given termination on 24.07.1998. Later, they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24018 of 1998 and by virtue of the orders of this court on 22-11-2000, the petitioner was engaged afresh as casual labourer, but there is no scope to consider the petitioner as permanent employee.
3.1 It is also stated that by virtue of the orders passed by this Court dated 22-11-2000, the petitioner is to be treated as fresh entrant as casual labourer and the conferment of temporary 6 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 status is subject to formulation of the scheme and there is no such scheme so far in addition to the scheme that was formulated on 07.11.1989. It is further stated that in view of standing instructions of DOT, New Delhi Lr.No.269-4/93 STN-II dt.12.02.1999, the petitioner could not be given Temporary Status and grant of temporary status since the officials entry date is 01.02.1986 and he rendered service with considerable breaks more than 1 years. No condition of brek in service beyond 1 year is to be considered vide DOT letter dt.07.11.1989. No casual mazdoor who have been recruited after 30.03.1985 should be granted temporary status without the approval from DOT.
3.2 It is further stated that the petitioner approached Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, and filed I.D.No.54 of 2004 and the said Tribunal vide its order dt.19.032009 has decided the case of the petitioner as follows:
"...the petitioner's claim for the regularization is based on misconceived and incorrect, and facts are misleading and he is not entitled for regularization 7 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 w.e.f.20.11.2000 as claimed by the workman and the action of the respondents is justified..." Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been working as a casual mazdoor since 01.02.1986 in the office the 4th respondent and he is eligible for getting Temporary Status Mazdoor as per the order Lr.No.271-13/92/STN dt.22.10.1992 w.e.f. 17.12.1993. But, the respondent No.3 till filing of Writ Petition has not considered his case for Temporary Status Mazdoor, due to which, he lost his financial benefits and increments from the year 1993. He further contended that the respondents instead of continuing petitioner's services and conferring the benefits like temporary status and regularization of service, terminated his services during the year 1998 on the ground that he has submitted bogus work days certificates in support of work done by him, which is false and prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the scheme of confirmation of regular 8 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 status i.e. temporary status of the casual labourers contained in letter No.269-10/89/STN, dated 7.11.1989 which contemplates the rules for formulation of temporary status at paragraph No.5 which reads as follows:
i) Temporary Status would be conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five day week). Such casual labourers will be designated as Temporary Mazdoor."
6.1 Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that since the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of the scheme, his case was not considered for confirmation of temporary status and regularization as he is not entitled for the same, and even by virtue of the orders of this court in W.P. No.24018 of 1998, the petitioner was engaged afresh as casual labourer, but there is no scope to consider the petitioner as permanent employee. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
9 RRN,J
WP No.18764 of 2019
7. Heard Sri K. Buch Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Ch. Lakshmi Kumari, learned Standing counsel for BSNL. Perused the record.
8. Having considered the rival contentions raised by both parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not continuously worked without any break as the record shows that he worked in Karimnagar sub division up to May 1987 with break periods. From June 1987 to December 1988 and he did not work anywhere. This is against the conditions laid down for temporary status of the casual labourers contained in letter No.269-10/89/STN, dated 7.11.1989. Moreover, at the time of his re-entry i.e. on 01.01.1989 the petitioner submitted days, particulars that he worked in Railway Electrification Project (REP) from 6/1987 to 12/1988. The days record submitted by the petitioner regarding REP works i.e. from 1/1985 to 1/1986 (1 year) and from 6/1987 to 12/1988 (1½ years) had been sent to REP authorities concerned for verification along with the other candidates who produced REP days record. In that enquiry, it is 10 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 proved that all the mazdoors including the petitioner has submitted false and fake days record to cover their considerable gap in their past rendered service. In view of the enquiry, all these casual mazdoor who submitted false records, were given termination on 24.07.1998. Later, they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.24018 of 1998 and by virtue of the orders of this court on 22-11-2000, the petitioner was engaged afresh as casual labourer, but there is no scope to consider the petitioner as permanent employee.
9. This court perused the order in W.P.No. 23456 of 1998 and batch in which the petitioner is also one of the parties, this Court initially passed interim direction to continue the services of the petitioners and ultimately disposed of the writ petitions with the following order:
"Taking into consideration the fact that these petitioners have worked as casual labourers( Mazdur) under the respondent-management for such a long period ranging from 1985-86 till date, though pursuant to the interim direction granted by this court, and many of them might have already crossed the age of eligibility and without taking into consideration the genuineness 11 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 or otherwise of the certificates produced by them, it is now ordered that the respondent-management shall engage these petitioners afresh as casual laboures from this day and pay them the wages and other emoluments payable to the casual labourers from this day. Regarding regularization of these petitioners, it shall depend upon the future exigency, any scheme launched by the management, the suitability of the workmen etc."
10. In view of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court two things are cleared i.e. (1) majority of the persons crossed the age limit (2) they have to be engaged "afresh" in the service. So, these two facts indicate that though they are working for the last several years because of the above order, they do not have any right to say that they are continuing their services for the last 10 years or so. The petitioner filed Industrial Dispute No.54 of 2004 wherein the Labour Court observed as follows:
"...this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that petitioner's claim for the regularization is based on misconceived and incorrect facts or misleading facts and he is not entitled for regularization w.e.f.20.11.2000 as claimed by him. It is held that 12 RRN,J WP No.18764 of 2019 the action of the management of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in not regularizing the services of Sri M. Mahender Reddy, petitioner, w.e.f. 20.11.2000 is justified. He is not entitled for the relief claimed by him..."
11. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16319 of 2009. Subsequently, he withdrew the same on 05.07.2019 with a liberty to pursue his remedies in accordance with the law. But, he did not approach any Court of law for the relief he sought for. So, the above attitude of the petitioner goes to show that he has come to the Court with unclean hands and he is habituated to file one after the other petitions in different Courts. It is not proper for the petitioner to approach this Court as once the case of the petitioner has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24018 of 1998 on 22.11.2000 and the said order has become final.
12. Under the above circumstances, viewed from any angle, there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13 RRN,J
WP No.18764 of 2019
13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J Date: 02.12.2022 B/o BDR