Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3383
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.MANIKUMAR and N.AUTHINATHAN, JJ.
K.Kumaresan- Appellant
Vs.
Union of India, rep. by its The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Respondent
W.P.Nos.9316 & 9111 of 2014 & M.P.Nos.2 & 2 and 3 & 3 of 2014
Decided on : 10-11-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. M.Gnanasekar
For the Respondent: Mr. Venkataswamy Babu Special Government Pleader
Casual laborers/temporary employees do not have a right to regular or permanent employment, as established in Umadevi's case.
Headnote:
Regularization - Employment Dispute - [Umadevi's case] - [Art. 14, Art. 16, Umadevi's case]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regularization of their services as casual laborers against Group 'D' posts in the Office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim based on the decision in Umadevi's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, appointed as casual laborers on daily wages, could not claim regular or permanent employment based on the decision in Umadevi's case. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the petitioners had no legal right to be made permanent employees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, appointed as casual laborers, were entitled to regularization against Group 'D' posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in Umadevi's case, which held that casual laborers/temporary employees do not have a right to regular or permanent employment. The court emphasized that the length of service as a casual laborer would not entitle the employees to be absorbed in regular service.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petitions and upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, stating that the relief sought by the petitioners could not be granted.
N.AUTHINATHAN, J.
As the point involved in these Writ Petitions is the same and arising out of a common order, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order passed by the third respondent herein, in O.A.Nos.573 and 680 of 2012, dated 10.06.2013 and to quash the same and allow the Original Applications.
3. The writ petitioners, namely, K.Kumaresan; K.Srinivasan and K.Saravanan, were sponsored by Employment Exchange for appointment as casual labourers on daily wages in the Office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench. K.Kumaresan, was allowed to work since 09.03.2009; K.Srinivasan, was allowed to work since 02.03.2009; and K.Saravanan, was allowed to work since 01.06.2011, by giving breaks.
4. The first respondent sent a proposal to the second respondent for appointment of the petitioners on adhoc basis. The second respondent rejected the proposal for regular/adhoc appointment of the petitioners to the posts of Group 'D', by observing No daily wagers, No Ad-hoc. Only Outsourcing.
5. Thereupon, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, by way of O.A.Nos.573 and 680 of 2012, seeking the following relief : to direct the respondents to regularize their services against any Group 'D' post and also give them all consequential and monetary and other benefits to which they are entitled.
6. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners. According to them, the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis as casual labourers. Their services could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason. They have also submitted that the posts of Group-'D' was abolished on account of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the Group-'D' posts were upgraded as Group-'C' posts. They have also submitted that DOPT, vide its Office Memorandum No.AB-14017/6/2009-Estt(RR) dated 17.02.2011, requested the Ministries / Departments to intimate their requirements for non-technical Group 'C' posts PB-I Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- to Staff Selection Commission immediately so that the Commission could initiate action for recruitment. As the recruitment rules were under finalisation, the vacancies could not be communicated to the Regional Office of Staff Selection Commission. According to them, the petitioners cannot claim regularisation of services to Group-'D' posts. By virtue of an order dated 20.05.2015 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, the erstwhile Group-'D' i.e. Record Sorter, Photocopier Operator, Daftary, Senior Peon, Peon, Chowkidar, Safaiwala, Farash, Mali, has been redesignated as Multi Tasking Staff (Group-'C').
7. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMADEVI [(2006) 4 SCC 1], rejected the claim of the petitioners and dismissed O.A.Nos.573 and 680 of 2012, by a common order dated 10.06.2013.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Applications mechanically by applying the decision in Umadevi's case to the petitioners' case. He has also pointed out that the second respondent has appointed and regularised several persons, who are similarly placed but the claim of the petitioners have been negatived.
9. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as casual labourers on daily wages (on no work no wages). It is also not in dispute that their postings are purely temporary and could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason.
10. In STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMADEVI [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the Supreme Court has held thus: “48....................Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No
