Bombay High Court
Abdul Aleem S/O. Abdul Saleem vs The Union Of India, Through Its ... on 25 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 319.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.319 OF 2016
Abdul Aleem s/o Abdul Saleem,
Aged 42 years,
Occupation-Nil,
R/o. Behind Masjid, Akot File,
Akola. .. PETITIONER
.. VERSUS ..
1] The Union of India, through its
Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
New Delhi.
2] The General Manager,
Telecommunication,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Old Cotton Market, Akola.
3] The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Civil Lines,
Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Dr. A.H. Jamal, Advocate for petitioner,
Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent no.1,
Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for respondent no.2,
Shri H.D. Dubey, A.G.P. for respondent no.3.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JULY 25, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:36 :::
WP 319.16.odt 2
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties.
2] The challenge in petition is to the award dated
16.2.2015 passed by respondent no.3-Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur (for short
"CGIT") awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to
petitioner in lieu of reinstatement and full back wages.
3] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated
in nutshell as under :
Petitioner was working as a driver from 1994 to
2000 with erstwhile department of telecommunication and
thereafter with respondent no.2. The grievance of petitioner
is that his services were orally terminated with effect from
8.7.2002. Petitioner submitted approach notice requesting
reinstatement, regularization in service and back wages.
Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were filed by him and
dispute was referred by respondent no.1 to respondent no.3
for adjudication.
4] The learned Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour
Court passed award on 16.2.2015 and directed the
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:36 :::
WP 319.16.odt 3
department to pay Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and
back wages. It is this order which is the subject matter of
present writ petition.
5] Heard Dr. Jamal, learned counsel for petitioner,
Mrs. Munshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1,
Dr. Sundaram, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and
Shri Dubey, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3.
6] The learned counsel for petitioner submits that
petitioner was in continuous service from 1994 to 8.7.2002
and had completed 240 days continuous service in each
calender year. According to learned counsel, despite
availability of vacancy, services of petitioner were not
regularized and without following the procedure prescribed
by law, petitioner was terminated. Learned counsel
submitted that in view of facts brought on record duly
established by cogent evidence, Tribunal ought to have
reinstated petitioner with continuity of service and back
wages. A grievance is made that Tribunal acted contrary to
the schedule and impugned order is per se illegal. In
support of submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaypal
Singh .vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation [2015 I
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:36 :::
WP 319.16.odt 4
CLR 591].
7] Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2,
submitted that petitioner was never appointed as a driver
but his services were availed as and when required. The
submission is that appointment of petitioner was not in
accordance with statutory rules and ad-hoc arrangement
does not confer any right in favour of petitioner. To
substantiate, learned counsel placed reliance on judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer,
Rajasthan Development Corporation and another
[(2013) 5 SCC 136] and Chief Administrator, Housing
Board Haryana .vs. Diwan Chand [2014 (1) Mh.L.J.
151].
8] It is not in dispute that initially petitioner was
engaged as a daily-wager. Respondents have challenged
appointment of petitioner and specifically stated in their
reply before CGIT that appointment of petitioner was not in
accordance with statutory rules. In this background,
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 I CLR 591
(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is
distinguishable. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
management had not challenged initial appointment of
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:36 :::
WP 319.16.odt 5
workman and on a reference, learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Rohtak passed award and granted
reinstatement with full back wages to the workman.
9] In the case on hand, as indicted above,
respondents have challenged initial appointment in their
reply before CGIT and in such circumstance, the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned
counsel for respondent no.2 in (2013) 5 SCC 136 and
2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 151 (Supra) would be squarely applicable.
10] Perusal of impugned order would indicate that the
findings recorded by CGIT are in consonance with the
evidence adduced by parties. Petitioner could not
demonstrate that order suffers from any perversity or
illegality. In such a situation, no interference is warranted
in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(1) Writ Petition No.319 of 2016 is dismissed.
(2) Rule is discharged.
(3) No order to costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
