The Chairman, Central Board Of ... vs K.Narsamma, Secunderabad 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 421 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 421 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

The Chairman, Central Board Of ... vs K.Narsamma, Secunderabad 3 ... on 3 February, 2022

Bench: P Naveen Rao, G.Radha Rani

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                            &
           HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI


              WRIT PETITION NO.26545 OF 2005

                       Date: 03.02.2022

Between:

The Chairman,
Central Board of Excise & Customs,
North Block, New Delhi and others.

                                               ..... Petitioners
           and

K.Narsamma w/o. K.Balaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Occu: Contingent Employee,
Office of IV Commissionerate,
Customs & Central Excise,
Balanagar-III Range, M.Division,
Opp: Hanuman Temple, China Thokatta,
New Bowenpally, Secunderabad,
Resident of Secunderabad and others.

                                          .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

PNR,J & GRR,J WP No.26545 of 2005

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO & HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

WRIT PETITION NO.26545 OF 2005

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General for petitioners.

2. O.A.No.1076 of 2004 and batch of OAs were instituted

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,

Hyderabad, praying to grant direction to the respondents not to

disengage them from their services and continue to pay their

salaries/wages directly to the applicants without insisting for

contractor or middlemen after declaring the action on the part of

the respondents to introduce contract system as arbitrary, illegal

and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to regularize

their services as and when vacancy arises.

3. The Tribunal by common order dated 31.03.2005 disposed of

all OAs directing not to dislodge the applicants by the freshers

even through the Contractors, and on lifting of ban on engagement

of casual workers and on availability of funds, the respondents

were directed to consider the case of the applicants for the purpose

of regularization of their services, if necessary, formulating a

scheme for the said purpose.

4. Aggrieved thereby, W.P.No.14715 of 2005 and batch of Writ

Petitions were filed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

The Division Bench of this Court by common order dated

03.08.2006 set aside the order of the Tribunal leaving it open to

the casual workers concerned to avail such other remedies as are PNR,J & GRR,J WP No.26545 of 2005

available to them in law to agitate their grievances with regard to

engagement of their services through the Contractors.

5. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

"In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi1, it is not for Courts/ Tribunals to issue a mandamus or direction for regularisation of the services of casual labourers. We may not be understood to have stated that the Government, even if it chooses to do so, should not frame a scheme for regularising the services of such casual labourers. All that we have held is that, Courts/ Tribunals ought not to issue a mandamus or direction in this regard. If the employer, in his wisdom, chooses to frame a scheme of regularisation, it is always open for him to do so. The Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing that the services of the causal labourers be continued and that they should not be dislodged even through contractors. No such direction could have been granted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & others2. Whether the department had a valid licence under the Act, whether the engagement of contractors is a mere camouflage, whether the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 had been violated in engaging the services of the casual labourers through the contractors are all matters, which are required to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence and not for the Central Administrative Tribunal to have determined."

6. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the decision in

O.A.No.1302 of 2004, which was also part of the common order of

the Tribunal dated 31.03.2005.

7. Following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court

dated 03.08.2006 in batch of Writ Petitions, this Writ Petition is

also disposed of, setting aside the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, leaving open to the casual labourers to

avail such other remedies as available to them in law to agitate

2006 (4) SCC 1

2001 (7) SCC 1 PNR,J & GRR,J WP No.26545 of 2005

their grievances with regard to the engagement of their services

through the Contractors. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any