The main legal point established in the judgment is that even if there is abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, there is no automatic right to absorption, and the matter must be adjudicated by the competent authority.

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Since both these appeals raise common question, we dispose of the same by this common judgment. We take Special Appeal No. 155 of 2015 as the leading case. This appeal is lodged against the judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1411 of 2012.

2. There is delay of 199 days in filing Special Appeal No. 155 of 2015. In the circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay will stand condoned. Delay Condonation Application will stand allowed.

3. Appellants in both the appeals are the writ petitioners. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1411 of 2012 was filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to implements the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 as amended Act, 1986. To the respondent department.

II. Issue a order or direction in the nature mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to reinstated the services of the petitioner in the respondent department as class IV employee.

III. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to pay the minimum wages to the petitioners as it is being paid to the regular employees of the Department in the corresponding cadre.”

4. Briefly put, the case of the appellant/writ petitioner is as follows:

The appellant/writ petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer on 01.11.1986 under the Sub Divisional Officer, Kashipur in the Department of Telecommunication. He worked from 01.11.1986 to 30.04.1987 and, thereafter, from 01.05.1987 to 31.10.1987. Thereafter, he continuously worked with the Department from 01.01.1996 to 01.12.1996. Reference is made to the scheme of grant of temporary status, which came into effect from 01.10.1989. The respondents did not give the benefits. In the year 2000, all the assets, services and liabilities of the Department of Telecommunication were transferred to the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. There is reference to Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1625 of 2004, which was admitted, and wherein interim order was passed that the writ petitioners/appellants be paid minimum pay scales as they are working since 1986. Reference is also made to paragraph no. 53 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others. Annexure No. 3 purports to be the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1625 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be disposed of in the following manner:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that the petitioner has worked for more than 10 years. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi 2006 AIR SCW 1991 has held in para 44 that the Government should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The Apex Court has also held that the process must be set in motion within six months.

In view of the above observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) wants to withdraw the petitioner with liberty to make representation before the appropriate authority.

Therefore, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to make representation before the appropriate authority.

Stay order, if any, shall stands vacated.

On the basis of the same, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted representation vide Annexure No. 4. The same stood rejected vide Annexure No. 5 dated 25.03.2008 on the basis that he has never worked with the respondents. The further case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that during this period the respondents placed him under contractor Laxmi Engineer Mathura i.e. from 28.02.2006 as a result of w