Krushna Nagorao Lute vs Central Administrative Tribunal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4372 Bom

                                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

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.

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

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

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

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