Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Executive ... vs Sri Ranvir Singh And Another on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148531
RESERVED
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7766 of 1997
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Through Executive Engg. Nalkoop Khand Agra
Respondent :- Sri Ranvir Singh And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Standing Counsel
Counsel for Respondent :- Gopal Narain Srivastava
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Narain Shrivastva, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 18.11.1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Tribunl, Agra.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 was working as a daily wager in the establishment of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be appointed on the permanent post of peon on 14.12.1981 in the establishment of the petitioner and his services were terminated illegally for which a reference was made. But the petitioner has averred that the respondent no.2 was working as a daily wager on muster roll and was an ad-hoc employee having no legal right for availing salary as a regular employee as he did not continuously work for 240 days as per the provision of 2 (g) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further averred that the reference as well as the impugned order is bad in the eye of law, hence the present writ petition.
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent no.2 was a daily wager and did not work as a regular employee and impugned order directing for reinstatement along with back wages is bad. He further submits that it is the duty of the employee to prove by cogent material to show that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He further submits that there is no material to support the claim made by respondent no.2., so he prays of allowing of the present writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent no.2 worked in the establishment of the petitioner from 14.12.1981 to 8.4.1986. He further submits that the material has been brought on record to show that the respondent no.2 worked with the petitioner's establishment. He further submits that the petitioner, on the one hand, has filed the documents admitting that the petitioner had worked from 1.7.1985 to 31.12.1985 but during the cross-examination, did not accept that the petitioner even worked in its establishment and the petitioner were blowing hot and cold at the same time, which cannot be permitted.
5. He further submits that, two certificates were brought on record to show that the respondent no.2 had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, which have neither been denied nor any material contrary to it was brought on record to show that that respondent no.2 did not work for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
6. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer; (2006) 1 SCC 106 and prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
7. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 worked as a daily wager on muster roll and he was an ad-hoc employee to which no legal right for salary of a regular employee can be paid as he failed to bring on record the material to show that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. But, the impugned order itself shows that in cross-examination, the certificate was duly issued by the petitioner-officer and the same has neither been disbelieved nor any cogent material was brought on record to show that it was forged documents. Once, the certificate which shows that the respondent no.2 worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year, the impugned order cannot be interfered.
8. Furthermore, in the case of R.M. Yellatta (supra), the Supreme Court has specifically in para 29 has held as under:-
"Before concluding, we would like to make an observation with regard to cases concerning retrenchment/termination of services of daily waged earners, particularly those who are appointed to work in Government departments. Daily waged earners are not regular employees. They are not given letters of appointments. They are not given letters of termination. They are not given any written document which they could produce as proof of receipt of wages. Their muster rolls are maintained in loose sheets. Even in cases, where registers are maintained by the Government departments, the officers/clerks making entries do not put their signatures. Even where signatures of clerks appear, the entries are not countersigned or certified by the appointing authorities. In such cases, we are of the view that the State Governments should take steps to maintain proper records of the services rendered by the daily wagers; that these records should be signed by the competent designated officers and that at the time of termination, the concerned designated officers should give certificates of the number of days which the labourer/daily wager has worked. This system will obviate litigations and pecuniary liability for the Government."
9. From bare reading of the aforesaid case, it is evident clear that the daily-wager has no legal document in its support to justify his claim that he was worked in a particular establishment and there, the directions were issued by the Supreme Court for maintaining proper about the daily-wager.
10. In the case in hand, once two certificates were brought on record to show that the respondent no.2 worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year in the establishment of the petitioner and moreover, the said certificates, in the cross-examination, have not been denied or any cogent material has been brought on record to show otherwise, hence the impugned order cannot be interfered with.
11. In view of the above aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order does not call for any interference and is accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26 .7.2023
Pravesh Mishra
