Rajesh Harischandra Kamerkar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 766 Bom

JUDGMENT

V.G. Palshikar, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the Original Application of the petitioner claiming regularization of service by the Government of India.

2. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to protection of Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India. The claim of the petitioner is that he is a temporary servant entitled to be regularized in view of para 4 of the above scheme. Para 4 reads thus:

Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of the O. M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week.)"

3. The tribunal has considered this aspect in detail and has found as a fact that even if the entire submissions of the petitioner are accepted, he has not worked in any given year for a period of more than 240 days as contemplated by the clause quoted above. The tribunal also found that the petitioner was engaged on piecemill work as and when such work was available and therefore according to the Tribunal the respondents were not bound in law to regularize the services of the petitioner as is not covered by clause 4 of the scheme and even otherwise he was being in piecemill work as and when such work is available and when the petitioner was available to do it.

4. The ground urged by the petitioner regarding violation of 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter was left open for agitation in proper forum. There is thus no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the tribunal Hence there is no reason to interfere in this case. Petition accordingly dismissed.