The duty of the Indian Red Cross Society, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, to act as a model employer and treat employees fairly, as well as the prohibition of exploitation under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).

The petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (for short ‘Tribunal’) dated 28.3.2013 whereby her claim for regular appointment to the post of PBX Clerk has been denied and has therefore, filed this writ petition seeking the following substantive relief:

“That the award dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) may kindly be quashed and set aside and same may kindly be declared illegal and the respondents may kindly be directed to give regular appointment to the petitioner in the post of PBX Clerk on regular basis as per the policy of the State.”

2. On 10.1.1989 the petitioner was appointed in Indian Red Cross Society (for short ‘Society’) as Clerk-cum-Typist. This appointment was given by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan in the capacity of the Chairman of the Society and the emoluments of the petitioner were fixed at Rs.750/- per month.

3. Indisputably, the petitioner has been working in the said capacity till date. The petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal for regularization of her services and reference was decided in her favour vide award dated 16.1.2007. However, the said award was challenged by the respondents by medium of CWP No. 259 of 2007 and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for considering two communications annexed as Annexures R-6 and R-7, respectively. The Tribunal below vide its award dated 28.3.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she is an employee of Red Cross Society, and therefore, her services cannot be regularized.

4. The petitioner has challenged this award on the ground that after having worked w.e.f. 10.1.1989, it was legitimate that her services to be regularized even if they had been rendered with the Indian Red Cross Society of which the Deputy Commissioner is the Chairman.

5. In response to the petition, the respondents in their reply have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition and on merits, the factual averments have not been denied and the only ground to deny the claim of the petitioner is that she has never been on the pay role of the State.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case carefully.

7. The only reason which outweigh all other considerations before the Tribunal to deny the benefit of regularisation to the petitioner was that the petitioner was not an employee of the State Government and, therefore, her services could not be regularised. Even before this Court, the only contention raised by the respondents to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 i.e. the Indian Red Cross Society is not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

8. The issue regarding the Indian Red Cross Society being a State and amenable to writ jurisdiction is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pant Raj Sachdev vs. The Indian Red Cross Society and others, 1986 (1) SLR 675, which in turn has been affirmed by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in The District Red Cross Society, Sirsa vs. Radha Kishan Rajpal and another, 2005 (1) SLR, 781, Om Parkash Sharma vs. Indian Red Cross Society, Punjab and another, 2005 (3) PLR, 271, Swaran Sharma vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (4) PLR, 526 and Division Bench judgment in Alka Ghai vs. J.R.Verma and others, LPA No. 176 of 2008, decided on 16.4.2009.

9. In view of the exposition of law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it can conveniently be held that respondent No.1 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court and if that be so, it cannot shirk from its responsibility and liability for ensuring that a fair and reasonable treatment be meted out to the petitioner.

10. Indisputably, insofar as the State Government and other Boards/Corpo