Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Krishna Sahu, s/o Kolha Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through General Manager, Ranchi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the Award dated 21.7.2011(Annexure-12); whereby the dispute in question referred to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad has been answered against the present petitioners.
3. The factual matrix is that the petitioners are working under the respondent on various post of class-IV being appointed between the period of 1990–1994. Furthermore, the stand of the petitioners is to the effect that they are working in different posts, which are of permanent nature, including exchange maintenance, cable maintenance, line maintenance, store maintenance, PCM, maintenance, etc. continuously under the direct control and supervision of the respondent.
The petitioners have claimed that the respondent had directly employed them. According to them, the works they were engaged to perform were of permanent and perennial nature and their jobs were directly connected with the operations and crucial to the functioning of the respondents.
It has been further narrated that the petitioners have put in more than 240 days of attendance in each year and the same is dispute
Adverse inference can be drawn against employers for withholding evidence that could substantiate workers' claims for regular employment, necessitating reconsideration of their claims.
A worker engaged in jobs of permanent nature cannot be denied regularisation despite an intermediary contractor, and adverse inferences may be drawn against the management's lack of evidence.
The court confirmed that permanent employment requires formal appointment procedures, and mere long service does not grant entitlement to regularisation without mandated legal protocols.
The court affirmed that employees with long, uninterrupted service in government positions, labeled 'casual,' are entitled to regularization under fairness and justice principles in public employment....
The initial burden of proof was on workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer was held to be erroneous.
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
The court determined that prolonged tenure contracts for employees performing roles of regular workers constitute unfair labor practice, justifying their regularization as permanent employees under a....
Employers cannot deny regularization to employees engaged in perennial work, regardless of claims of temporary employment, as such practices violate statutory obligations and constitute unfair labor ....
Long-term engagement of employees for over 240 days establishes entitlement to regularization, reinforcing the principle against unfair labor practices applicable to public sector employment.
Private companies cannot use discretion to justify unfair labour practices, and past financial status as a sick unit does not prevent directions of permanency that may increase financial burden.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
