Withdrawal of governmental approval for employee benefit schemes must be justified, affirming the entitlement of casual workers to retroactive benefits under established schemes.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

Writ Appeal No.260/2023 is filed by the Central Silk Board and Writ Appeal No.468/2023 is filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19130/2007 connected with Writ Petition No.20513/2007 (L-RES) and Contempt of Court Case No.950/2023 is filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union for disobedience of the same order.

2. We have heard Shri. Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Shri. Madhukar M Deshpande, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union and Shri. Ashok S Haranahalli, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. V.S. Naik, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents.

3. The respondents in Writ Appeal No.260/2023, one hundred and seventy two in number, had filed the writ petitions challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru ('CGIT' for short) dated 19.09.2007. They had raised a contention that they are all qualified, eligible and entitled to get the benefits of the Scheme known as the "Casual Labourers" (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme, 1993) from the date of its issuance.

4. A dispute arose between the workmen and the appellant and on conciliation failing, the following reference was made by the Central Government to the CGIT as under:-

"Whether the claim of the Central Silk Road Employees' Union to adopt the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Government of India, 1993 and Pay Scales of the 5^th Pay Commission in respect of casual and timescale farm workers by the Management of the Central Silk Board, Bangalore is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

5. The contention of the private respondents was that the scheme in question was formulated by the Central Government and came into force on 10.09.1993. The Union sought the benefits of the Scheme, but the same was not granted by the Board. The matter was referred for conciliation and on conciliation having failed; the Central Government referred the dispute to the CGIT. The parties filed their respective pleadings. The CGIT dismissed the reference by its award dated 19.09.2007 stating that the Management Board is a statutory body controlled by the Textile Ministry and that the approval granted to the Scheme on 01.12.2005 had been withdrawn by the Government. Accepting the contention that the Scheme required the sanction of the Central Government and that such sanction had been withdrawn, the CGIT rejected the reference. It was found that the casual labourers working under the Board have no right for conferment of temporary status and that it is only if the Scheme were to be adopted by the Board that the claim of the workmen would arise under the Scheme. It was found that though the Board had recommended the implementation of the Scheme and permission was initially granted by the Central Government, the same was withdrawn and therefore there was no sanction for implementation of the Scheme in the Board. The aggrieved workmen had challenged the said award before this Court.

6. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions and found that the respondent - Board in its 115^th meeting dated 19.03.2005, had passed a unanimous resolution to implement the Scheme in favour of the workmen of the Board. The said resolution passed by the respondent - Board was approved by the Central Government vide