IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that casual laborers are not entitled to back wages if they do not meet continuous employment criteria and fail to timely challenge relevant awards.

ORDER :

(V. Sujatha, J.) :

Both these petitions are filed by the same petitioner but by claiming different relief, however the issue involved in these petitions can be decided by way of a common order. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.35434 of 2018 as leading petition.

2. W.P. No.35434 of 2018 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS quashing the award dated 28-12-1998 passed in ID No.17/1998 passed by Indus Tribunal-II to the extent of without back wages as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, un-constitutional against the principals of natural justice, fair plea and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and pass...”

3. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as extra casual labour gangman under the Permanent Way Inspector (PWI), in South Central Railways, Ongole, on 10.10.1976 on payment of daily wages @4.50Ps., and the services of the petitioner were also utilized as Carpenter Kalasi. While so, one Mr. Chennulu took over as Permanent Way Inspector in November, 1978, who directed the petitioner to work as a gangman under a maistry. Accordingly, the petitioner worked as instructed up to 10.03.1979 and his name was also included in muster rolls. When the petitioner reported to duty on 13.03.1979, the petitioner was not provided the instrument required for the work and was marked as absent; which act continued till 22.03.1979. Challenging the action of the maistry, the petitioner has filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.184 of 1979, which was transferred to central administrative tribunal and was numbered as T.A.no.7/90; however, the same was dismissed on 20.12.1990 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the same falls under the Industrial Tribunal Act. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal and filed I.D.No.17 of 1998, wherein, after an elaborate enquiry, award was passed on 28.12.1998 directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner into duty as casual labour afresh, without back wages.

4. Challenging the said award the respondent authorities have filed W.P.No.22792 of 1999, which was dismissed on 29.06.2010 as under:

“…The Industrial Tribunal has undertaken extensive discussion on the basis of the voluminous evidence placed before it to arrive at just and proper conclusions. The petitioner is not able to point out any perversity in the award or lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed…”

5. Thereafter, the respondents have issued appointment letter dated 01.03.2013 appointing the petitioner as substitute track maintainer-IV (Fresh Face) in the civil engineering department in PB-1 cadre under the pay scale of Rs.4440-7440 without grade with a pre condition that the petitioner has to acquire minimum qualification of 10th class or ITI or equivalent. The petitioner, having no other option has joined in the service on 07.03.2013 but however challenged the appointment orders vide W.P.No.29302 of 2015 on the ground that the appointment order is contrary to the award passed by the labour Court on 28.12.1998. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.01.2018 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Seeking a direction to the respondents to pay back wages to the petitioner from 10.03.1979 till the date of retirement i.e. 31.01.2018 with cumulative effect by considering promotions on par with similarly placed employees in the same cadre since 10.03.1979 and further seeking to quash the award dated 28.12.1998 to the extent of ‘without back wages’, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 28.12.1998 in I.D.No.17 of 1998 has directed the respondents to take the petitioner as a casual worker a