(CLMA No. 436 of 2019)

1. The application, to condone the delay in preferring this review application, is not opposed, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed.

(MCC No. 18 of 2019)

2. This application is filed seeking review of the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in SPA No. 456 of 2014. The appellants preferred the Special Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2014 in WPSS No. 472 of 2013. They filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.09.2012, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them in accordance with the IIP Casual/Contractual Workers Absorption Scheme, 2000, and in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in WPSS No. 835 of 2004 dated 13.08.2010.

3. The respondent - appellants had earlier filed WPSS No. 835 of 2004, wherein they had contended that they had completed 240 days service for the period upto 17.11.1999, and had sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider their claim, on preferential basis, for appointment as regular Plumbers/Tube-well Operators in the respondent (review applicant) department, considering their services in the department on daily wages.

4. The learned Single Judge took note of the IIP Casual/Contractual Workers Absorption Scheme, 2000 and that, under the Scheme, workers should have been engaged on consolidated wages, and should have completed 240 days service in a year, upto 17.11.1999, to be considered for appointment in a regular vacancy. The review applicant herein was directed to consider the claim of the respondents – appellants - writ petitioners for appointment in a vacancy as per the Scheme, whenever such occasion arose; and, in case they fulfilled the conditions of the Scheme, they should be appointed.

5. On the respondent - appellants request, for being considered in terms of the Scheme being rejected by the review applicant herein on several grounds, including that they had not completed 240 days of service, the respondent - appellants again approached this Court by way of WPSS No. 472 of 2013. The learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition by order dated 08.08.2014, holding that the respondent - appellants had not completed 240 days of service. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred SPA No. 456 of 2014, resulting in the order under review dated 12.09.2018 being passed. In the said order, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had erred in calculating 240 days; and 240 days should be counted in a block of twelve calendar months, and not in one year, even under Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2014 was set aside. The Division Bench, thereafter, opined that, in normal circumstances, they would have directed consideration of the appellants’ case for regularization; but, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as they belonged to the lowest strata of society, and as they have been litigating since 1999, they should be deemed to have been regularized immediately after completion of 240 days with all consequential benefits, without any specific order of regularization.

6. The relevant part of the Scheme of absorption of casual/contractual worker reads as under:-

“3. Objective and scope of the Scheme: The Scheme being a one-time measure will be applicable to workers who were engaged on casual/contractual basis on consolidated payments of wages who hand completed 240 days (206 days in case of 5 days week) in a year upto 17.11.1999, provided they were and/or are not in employment in any Govt./Semi Govt./Public Sector Undertaking/Local Self-Govt./Public Sector Enterprises/ Autonomous Body etc. after their discontinuance with IIP and they had not left IIP job on their own.

4. Terms and conditions of regularisation:

(a) Casual/Contractual Workers should be educationally qual