Regularisation of service of Casual Daily Labourers should not be unduly delayed.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

The petitioners seek to quash the order dated 13.06.2000 passed by the first respondent Tribunal in O.A. No.658 of 1998 and to consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to regularise their services.

2. The petitioners have been employed as Casual Daily Labourers (CDL) in Group D posts for the last two decades in the 4th respondent College (hereinafter referred to as "the College") and have not been conferred permanent status by it despite their repeated representations. In O.A. Nos. 367 to 370 of 1992 filed by some of the CDLs seeking to regularise their services, the Tribunal directed College to absorb the petitioners in regular posts as and when vacancies arise and not to terminate them till such time. Since no response was forthcoming, another batch of applications was preferred in O.A. Nos.1789 and 1799 of 1992 in which the Tribunal directed the College to prepare a scheme for regularisation of the applicants within a period of three months and to fit in them under the said scheme as and when vacancies arise. Consequently, the College, by its order dated 22.03.1994, granted temporary status to 15 CDLs, which included the petitioners also with effect from 01.09.1993. Since the order of the Tribunal to frame a scheme for regularization of CDLs did not bring out any positive result, the petitioners herein, along with two others, filed O.A. No.658 of 1998 seeking regularisation of their services with effect from 01.03.1994 by complying with the orders of the Tribunal in the earlier O.As.

3. The Tribunal, though moved by the pitiable plight of the applicants, by holding that the creation/abolition of posts is always within the administrative domain of the Head of the Department controlling the College and as such, it cannot make a roving enquiry in the matter, disposed of the O.As. with a direction to the College to take up the matter with the headquarters office on an expeditious basis. Not getting any positive direction from the Tribunal with regard to their regularization, the petitioners have come out with this petition to quash the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.658 of 1998 and for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to regularise their services.

4. The stand taken by the respondents 2 to 4 before the Tribunal as well as this Court, in nutshell, is that creation of posts involves cumbersome, complex and time-consuming formalities and hence, the matter is still under consideration by the Government of India and till such time the posts are created, the petitioners will be absorbed in the event of any Group D post falling vacant.

5. We have given our careful thought to the arguments of Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Raman Lal, learned SCGSC for the respondents 2 to 4.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the continuing the petitioners as temporary employees for years together and depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Citing Section 3(i) the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, he has contended that the petitioners should have been conferred permanent status inasmuch as they have put in 480 days of service within a period of 24 calendar months. He has assailed the stand taken by the Tribunal that its role is limited in matters of this nature. It is his submission that instead of holding so, the Tribunal ought to have given a positive direction to the College to regularise the services of the petitioners.

7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:

a. (2000) 7 SCC 109 in the matter of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital vs. State of U.P. and others (para 10)

"Admittedly, cafeteria employees need succor for livelihood – would they