IMPORTANT POINT
It is trite that inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files do not have the sanction of law, creating a legally enforceable right.

Headnote:Service Law- Appeals against judgments and orders passed by High Court in Writ Appeal whereby it directed appellant No.1 Union of India to regularize services of members of respondent Union, employed by Border Roads Organization , as postulated in Office Memo –Held Division Bench erroneously construed the Office memo as an approved scheme for absorption and regularization of the casual workers- It was manifest from a bare reading of said memo that it was merely in the nature of an inter-department communication between Border Roads Development Board headquarters and its officials- No substance found in the stand of respondent that appellants were withholding approved scheme from Court- Again casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by relevant rules-Hence respondent Union’s claim for regularization of its members merely because they had been working for BRO for a considerable period of time could not be granted -Impugned judgement of High Court being unsustainable set aside-Appeals allowed. (Paras 13 to 16, 22)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present Appeals have been filed against judgments and orders passed by High Court in Writ Appeal whereby it directed appellant No.1Union of India to regularize services of members of respondent Union, employed by Border Roads Organization , as postulated in Office Memo.
       Findings of the Court :
        It was held that Division Bench erroneously construed the Office memo as an approved scheme for absorption and regularization of the casual workers. It was manifest from a bare reading of said memo that it was merely in the nature of an inter-department communication between Border Roads Development Board headquarters and its officials. No substance was found in the stand of respondent that appellants were withholding approved scheme from Court. Again casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by relevant rules. Hence respondent Union’s claim for regularization of its members merely because they had been working for BRO for a considerable period of time could not be granted .Impugned judgement of High Court being unsustainable was set aside. Appeals were allowed

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J. —

1. Challenge in these appeals, by special leave, is to the judgments and orders dated 27th March, 2001 and 22nd January, 2003 delivered by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 1996 whereby it has directed appellant No.1 viz. Union of India to regularize the services of the members of the respondent Union, employed by the Border Roads Organization (for short the “BRO”), as postulated in Office Memo No. Sectt. BRDB ID No. BRDB/04(90)/99- GE-II dated 2nd February, 2001. Appellants No. 2 to 17 are the functionaries of appellant No. 1.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts essential for adjudication of the present appeals may be stated as follows:

The respondent is a registered trade union comprising of casual workers employed by the BRO, in terms of paragraph 503 of the Border Road Regulations (for short “the Regulations”), some of whom have been working with the BRO for the last thirty years. In the year 1993, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court praying for issuance of a writ, inter-alia, directing appellant No.1 to regularize the services of the members of the respondent.

3. Vide judgment dated 27th August, 1996, the High Court allowed the writ petition, and directed appellant No.1 to regularize the services of the members of the respondent who have been in service for more than five years, within six months of the date of order.

4. Being aggrieved, appellants filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The Division Bench, while partly allowing the appeal, modified the order of the Single Judge on the basis of a circular dated 25th May, 1988 issued by one Brig. S.K. Mehta, D.D.G. (P&V), for and on behalf of the Director General Border Roads, New Delhi to all Chief Engineers for consideration of regularization of casually paid labourers employed by the BRO. The Division Bench held that:

“There shall be a writ of mandamus issued to the appellant herein with a direction to consider the case of these employees who are working in the above Organization/Institution who have put in more than 5 (five) years and above period of service for the purpose of regularization of their service in the light of the Circular referred to above keeping in view of the requirements of Articles 14, 15 and 16 for the purpose of maintaining the reservation Policy followed by the Govt. of India.

In so far as the casual labourers working in the organization/Institution are concerned, they shall continue to work till they attain the eligibility coming within the purview of the Circular for being considered.”

5. At this juncture, it would be expedient and useful to extract relevant portions of the said circular, which read as follows:

“REGULARISATION OF CASUALLY PAID LABOURERS EMPLOYED IN BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION- CONSTITUTION OF BOARD OF OFFICERS TO EXAMINE THE PROBLEMS.

1. Border Roads Organisation has been employing a large number of Casual Labourers for the past 28 years. There have been cases where Labour Unions have been formed though not recognized by us, as also there have been demands for their regularization. A large number of Court cases are also pending, connected with this issue.

2. Ministry of Surface Transport (BRDB) has offered a Board of Officers to examine various aspects. The terms of reference of the Board are at appendix ‘A’.

3. Before the Board examines the terms of reference as also other connected aspects, certain data is required from the Projects which is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.

........................................................................... .............................................................................

7. It may be appreciated that the recommendations of the Board of Officers have far reaching consequences. Your views and suggestions are, therefore should be deliberate and keeping in view the long term implications of the suggestions made. CEs are therefore, request

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 258

2011 (2) Supreme 238SUPREME COURT OF INDIAD.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.Union of India & Ors. — AppellantsversusVartak Labour Union — RespondentCivil Appeal Nos. 2129-2130 of 2004Decided on : 4-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINT It is trite that inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files do not have the sanction of law, creating a legally enforceable right.

Cases Referred (9)

2011 (2) Supreme 238
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Vartak Labour Union — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2129-2130 of 2004
Decided on : 4-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
It is trite that inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files do not have the sanction of law, creating a legally enforceable right.