The High court of Chhattisgarh recently comprising of a bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy remarked that daily wagers have no fundamental right to be absorbed in service as they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.( State of Chhattisgarh vs Mohit Ram)
Facts of the case
The respondent-worker has approached the Labour Court Rajnandgaon under Section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short, IR Act) against the alleged discontinuance of his service by the petitioner.
The contention of the worker before the Labour Court was that he was initially appointed at Chhuikhadan Section of the Public Works Department, Khairagarh Sub Division in the year, 1992 and he continued to work under the petitioner continuously up till the year, 1996 when his services were abruptly discontinued. According to the worker he had put in more than four years of service and have worked continuously for a period of 240 days before his discontinuance. Before discontinuance in the year, 1996 he was not issued with any show cause notice, nor compensation of any nature even retrenchment compensation was not paid.
The worker thereafter had approached the Labour Court. After a prolonged litigation, the Labour Court finally vide order allowed the application which the petitioner has filed and granted the relief of reinstatement with 50 percent backwages.
The said order of the Labour Court was subjected to challenge in an appeal under Section 65 of the CGIR Act before the Industrial Court, Raipur. The Industrial Court also after considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner herein rejected the appeal of the petitioner maintaining the order passed by the Labour Court which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
Contention of the Parties
The contention of the petitioner is that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the evidence which have come on record and have also ignored the pleadings that have been brought by the authorities before the Labour Court and as such the finding was per se contrary to evidence and also is a perverse finding. He also submits that the worker involved in the present dispute has failed to establish the fact that he continuously worked for a period of 240 days prior to the date of discontinuance of his service by leading cogent evidence.
Moreover, the nature of engagement of the worker was purely temporary in nature and he did not have any substantial or indefeasible right created in his favour for claiming the benefit that he has sought for.
Learned counsel for the respondent-worker on the other hand submitted that from the plain reading of the impugned orders it clearly reflects that the award passed by the Labour Court and which has been affirmed by the Industrial Court are based on finding of fact which does not warrant any interference.
The counsel further contended that even otherwise pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court at the first instance the worker stands reinstated in service way back in the year, 2005 and since then he has been continuously working with the petitioner and as such he has now put in about 16 years of service after reinstatement and therefore applying the doctrine of equity the impugned orders do not warrant any interference at this juncture.
According to the worker at this stage if the impugned awards are interfered with, the worker would not only lose his employment but also would not be able to get any employment elsewhere considering the age that he has reached by efflux of time. Thus, prayed for rejection of the writ petition.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The court remarked that the Labour Court has clearly recorded a finding that the respondent/workman has worked for continuous period of 240 days in one calender year preceding the date of termination, which is finding of fact based on material available on record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said part of order.
Relying on the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the court held that “There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on a contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed.”
The Court noted, “Admittedly, the respondent's appointment is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme by regular advertisement and he is merely a dailywager who has been directed to be regularised by the Labour Court. The order of the Labour Court runs contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka (supra) followed in A. Singamuthu's case (supra).”
The bench partly allowing the petition stated, “the present writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent that the impugned order does not warrant any interference to the order of reinstatement. However, so far as grant of 50 per cent back wages is concerned, the writ petitions of the State so far as two other workers whose cases were also decided along with the order under challenge in the present writ petition. wherein this court had already decided the same upholding the order of reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages, however, the order of regularization was set aside”.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
