The court affirmed the principle that continuous employment in essential roles requires regularization, emphasizing that temporary contracts must not bypass the rights of workers for stable employment.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. R. Das Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.31.12.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993 in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4. While so continuing w.e.f.01.03.1993, when he was disengaged w.e.f.01.02.1999, the matter was carried to the learned Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No. 43 of 2002. Learned Labour Court vide award dtd.31.07.2009 under Annexure-2, held the retrenchment of the Petitioner w.e.f.01.02.1999 as illegal and directed for his reinstatement. Pursuant to the said order and in terms of order dtd.15.04.2010, Petitioner rejoined on 19.04.2010 as a DLR vide Annexure-3.

4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner is continuing as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993 and the order of disengagement passed on 01.02.1999 was interfered with by the Labour Court by holding such disengagement as illegal, it is to be held that Petitioner is in continuous employment as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993. However, on the face of such continuance, when Petitioner was not regularized, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.C.(OAC) No. 43 of 2016. This Court vide order dtd.30.07.2021 under Annexure-10 disposed of the writ petition by directing the Opp. Parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC-1 , State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015(8) SCC 265 .

4.2. However, without proper appreciation of the same, Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.31.12.2021 under Annexure-1, inter alia on the ground that Petitioner was never engaged as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993 and such order of engagement has been issued by the then Executive Engineer without any proper authority.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while dealing with the retrenchment in I.D. Case No. 43 of 2002, learned Labour Court gave a finding that Petitioner is continuing as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993. The award so passed was never assailed and instead was implemented by allowing the Petitioner to rejoin vide order dtd.15.04.2010, wherein Petitioner rejoined on 19.04.2010. In view of such clear finding of the Labour Court, the stand taken by Opp. Party No. 1 that Petitioner was never engaged as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993 cannot sustain legal scrutiny. Finding of the Labour Court so available in the award reads as follows:-

“I must say that the second party workman with all preponderance of probabilities could establish that he was working under the first party management as D.L.R. continuously from 1.3.1993 to 1.2.1999.”

4.4. It is contended that in view of such clear finding of the Labour Court which was never assailed with its implementation, it is to be held that the Petitioner is continuing as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993 which is prior to cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dtd.15.05.1997. It is accordingly contended that taking into account his continuance as a DLR w.e.f.01.03.1993 and the award passed by holding the retren