Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1888
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and Jora Singh JJ.
Raj Kumar
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal
CWP No. 15261 of 1998,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 10, 2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fulfillment of the requirements of a scheme and the application of principles of natural justice are crucial in employment disputes.
Headnote:
Temporary Status - Employment Dispute - Scheme dated 10.09.1993 - [Scheme dated 10.09.1993, Article 226]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting their plea that the temporary status granted to them was continuous and rightly granted to them in pursuance to the scheme dated 10.9.1993. The petitioners had been working as Casual Labour with the respondent from various dates. The Tribunal rejected the plea, stating that the petitioners did not fulfill the requirements of the scheme and that the principles of natural justice were not required to be followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not fulfill the requirements of the scheme and that the principles of natural justice were not required to be followed. The court endorsed the view of the Tribunal and refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fulfillment of the requirements of the scheme dated 10.09.1993 and the application of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners did not fulfill the requirements of the scheme and that the principles of natural justice were not required to be followed. The court also emphasized that setting aside the order withdrawing the temporary status would result in the revival of an order to which the petitioners were not entitled according to the scheme.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed and the same was accordingly disposed of.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. Challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 226 is to the order dated 11.09.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity The Tribunal) rejecting the plea raised by the petitioners that the temporary status granted to them by the respondent was continuous and was rightly granted to them in pursuance to the scheme dated 10.9.1993.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the instant petition are that the petitioner had been working as Casual Labour with the respondent from different dates which would be clear from the following table: "S. No. Name Date of Employment Reference by Employment Exchange 1. Raj Kumar 21.11.1993 OC-27/93. dated 17.07.93 2. Sat Pal 24.11.1993 -do- 3. Ram Charan 28.11.1993 -do- 4. Ashok Kumar 01.12.1993 -do- 5. Sohan LaL 14.06.1994 OC/DW/ll/94/3029. dated 6.10.94 6. Banwari 14.06.1994 -do- 7. Ram Kumar 16.06.1994 OC/DW/ll/84/3029 dated 6.10.94 8. Kashmiri Lal 09.10.1994 -do- 9. Sish Pal 10.10.1994 -do- 10. Shankar 15.10.1994 -do-
3. On coming into force of the scheme dated 10.09.1993, the respondent granted them temporary status w.e.f. various dates of December, 1994 onwards which is evidenced from the following table: "S. No. Name Date of grant of Temporary Status 1. Raj Kumar 01.121994 2. Sat Pal 01.12.1994 3. Ram Charan 01.12.1994 4. Ashok Kumar 01.12.1994 5. Sohan Lal 08.10.1995 6. Banwari 08.10.1995 7. Ram Kumar 08.10.1995 8. Kashmiri Lal 09.10.1995 9. Sish Pal 10.10.1995 10. Shankar 15.10.1995"
4. The scheme was circulated on 10.09.1993 to which reference has been made in the petition (noticed at page 63). The salient feature of the scheme are reproduced herein below:
"Temporary status should be conferred on all Casual Labourers who are in employment on 01.09.93 (recruited through employment exchange) and have rendered continuous service of at least one year (they have been engaged for 240 days as on 01.09.1993."
5. The perusal of the aforementioned para would reveal that temporary status would have been conferred on such Casual Labourers who are in employment on 01.09.1993 and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year as on 01.09.1993. On the basis of clarification issued on 20.09.1998, the petitioners were deprived of temporary status by passing an order dated 14.04.1998 (Annexure P-9). The order dated 04.08.1998 (Annexure P-10) was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The claim made by the petitioner that the order suffers from legal infirmities has been negatived. The Tribunal has observed that as per the scheme, the temporary status of the petitioners would have been conferred as they fulfilled the requirements. The first requirement was that they should have been in service on 01.09.2003 and secondly they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year or if they satisfy the requirement of being engaged for 240 days as on 01.09.1993. The Tribunal has concluded that the petitioners did not fulfill the aforementioned requirements and it has been further observed by the Tribunal that under no law it has been recognized that a Casual Labourers would become entitled to be regularized or granted temporary status after completing 240 days in service and such a claim has to be covered under some rules which if at all adopted by various departments of Government of India. Arguments that principles of natural justice should have been followed by issuing notice to them at the pre-decisional stage has also been rejected with the observation that in case of correction of a mistake there is no necessity to issue a show-cause notice. In that regard, reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P and others vs. Shyama Pardhi, 1996(7) SCC 118
6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal in the instant petition. However, no one has appeared for the petitioners.
