All India C.P.W.D.Employees ... vs The Union Of India And 6 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 4258 Bom

                                1
                                                         wp2106.04.odt

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   Writ Petition No.2106 of 2004

  1. All India C.P.W.D. Employees Union,
     O/o the Chief Engineer,
     C.P.W.D., through its Secretary
     Shri U.D. Thakare,
     Bungalow No.6, Seminary Hills,
     Nagpur.

  2. Chandrashekhar Mohanrao Morghade,
     Aged about 38 years,
     Working as Field Assistant,
     Resident of Qtr. No.151/8,
     Type-II, C.P.W.D. Quarters,
     Near Post Office, Katol Road,
     Nagpur.                           ... Petitioners

       Versus

  1. The Union of India,
     Ministry of Works and Housing,
     through its Secretary,
     Nirman Bhawan,
     New Delhi.

  2. The Director General of Works,
     Central Public Works Department,
     Nirman Bhawan,
     New Delhi-110 011.

  3. The Chief Engineer,
     Central Public Works Department,
     (Western Zone II), A Block,
     C.G.O. Complex,
     Seminary Hills,




::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:40:54 :::
                                      2
                                                                   wp2106.04.odt

        Nagpur 440 006.

  4. The Superintending Engineer,
     Central Public Works Department,
     Nagpur Central Circle,
     Bungalow No.6, Seminary Hills,
     Nagpur-6.

  5. The Superintending Engineer,
     (Coord), Coordination Circle,
     C.P.W.D., Mumbai-20.

  6. The Executive Engineer,
     Central Public Works Department,
     Nagpur,
     Central Division No.1, Katol Road,
     Nagpur-440 013.

  7. Central Administrative Tribunal,
     Bench at Nagpur, through its
     Registrar.                                           ... Respondents


  Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
  Shri R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.


                Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

th Dated : 10 July, 2017

Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. Original Application No.796 of 1999 filed by the petitioners seeking

regularization of the petitioner No.2-Chandrashekhar

Mohanrao Morghade in service as unskilled labourer was dismissed by the

wp2106.04.odt

Central Administrative Tribunal on 23-3-2004. The petitioner No.1-Union and

the petitioner No.2, claiming to be the employee of the respondent Nos.1 to 6,

have preferred this petition claiming regularization of the petitioner No.2 in

service of the respondents.

2. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the

parties, we have gone through the documents placed on record and relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the claim that the

petitioner was an employee of the respondents. The document dated 5-1-

1999, which is a part of Annexure A-1, indicates that the petitioner No.2 was a

contractor engaged for providing the services of unskilled labour/coolie to carry

out the work as per the directions issued by the respondents. Several such

orders are placed on record incorporating the condition that the petitioner No.2

was not entitled to claim regularization in service. The respondents denied to

have any relationship of "employer and employee" between them and the

petitioner No.2. The order of termination dated 7-4-2004, placed on the record

of this Court, indicates that the petitioner No.2 was a contractor engaged for

providing the services of unskilled labour/coolie to carry out day-to-day

complaints as per the directions of the Engineer-in-Charge. The learned

wp2106.04.odt

counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Central

Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.786 of 1996,

delivered by the Jabalpur Bench on 15-1-1997.

3. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is

impugned in this petition, deals with this aspect in para 13 thereof, which is

reproduced below :

"13. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are distinguishable on facts and do not help the applicant. In the present case, the applicant has not succeeded in establishing that he was engaged by the respondent as casual labour. There is adequate material on record that he was engaged on contract work order basis. He cannot have a legal right to compel respondents to engage him because the appointment on daily basis is not appointment to the post according to rules. The object in which the applicant was engaged may come to an end and that the services of the applicant may be terminated depending on the work for which he was engaged. The court cannot give any direction to re-engage for any other work or appoint him against the existing vacancies. The applicant no.1 has also no locus standi on behalf of a person who is a Contractor with the respondent department."

wp2106.04.odt

It is apparent that the petitioner No.2 was engaged for a specific period as a

contractor. The Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the decision of

its Jalbalpur Bench. We do not find any evidence on record to show that the

petitioner No.2 was actually engaged as a labourer. Thus, there is no reason

to interfere in the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to

costs.

                 JUDGE.                                               JUDGE.

   Lanjewar