Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 9032
HIGH COURT FOR STATE OF TELANGANA
PULLA KARTHIK, ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, JJ
Union
WP/41842/2015
Courts/Tribunals cannot issue a mandamus or direction for regularisation of the services of casual labourers. It is for the employer, in its wisdom, to frame a scheme for regularisation, if it chooses to do so.
Headnote:
CASUAL LABOURERS - ENGAGEMENT - THROUGH CONTRACTORS - VALIDITY - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - REGULARSATION OF SERVICES - MANDAMUS - SCHEME FOR REGULARSATION - GOVERNMENT'S DISCRETION
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, casual labourers engaged by the Commissionerates, challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which directed the Commissionerates to consider their cases for regularisation of service, if necessary, by formulating a scheme for the purpose. The CAT had also directed that the petitioners should not be dislodged by freshers even through contractors.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi, it is not for Courts/Tribunals to issue a mandamus or direction for regularisation of the services of casual labourers. The court also held that the CAT erred in directing that the services of the casual labourers be continued and that they should not be dislodged even through contractors.
Issues: 1. Whether the CAT had jurisdiction to direct the Commissionerates to consider the petitioners' cases for regularisation of service?2. Whether the CAT erred in directing that the petitioners should not be dislodged by freshers even through contractors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court in Umadevi held that Courts/Tribunals ought not to issue a mandamus or direction for regularisation of the services of casual labourers. The court held that it is for the employer, in its wisdom, to frame a scheme for regularisation, if it chooses to do so.2. The court held that the CAT erred in directing that the services of the casual labourers be continued and that they should not be dislodged even through contractors. The court held that whether the department had a valid license under the Act, whether the engagement of contractors was a mere camouflage, and whether the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 had been violated in engaging the services of the casual labourers through the contractors are all matters which are required to be adjudicated on the basis of evidence and determined.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the CAT and left it open to the casual labourers concerned to avail such other remedies as are available to them in law, to agitate their grievances with regards engagement of their services through the contractors for works in Commissionerates, which according to them are permanent and perennial in nature.
COMMON ORDER:
When these matters are taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in the present Writ Petitions is squarely covered by the common order, dated 03.08.2006, passed by this Court in W.P.No.14715 of 2005 and batch and following the aforesaid common order, the present Writ Petitions are also liable to be disposed of.
2. In view of the said submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petitions also deserve to be disposed of following the aForesaid common order, dated 03.08.2006, passed by this Court in W.P.No.14715 of 2005 and batch.
3.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of following the aforesaid common order, dated 03.08.2006, passed by this Court in W.P.No.14715 of 2005 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
Misce lanoous Petitions, if any, pending ir these Writ Petitions sf all stand closed. SDI-K.AMMAJI AI;SISTANT EFGISTRAR ,/
COPY,, sEcrtAbFFrcER IITRUE To, L:;""
MBrA-
)
F-
HIGH COURT DA'IED: 1110112023 C()MMON ORDER WP NOS: 40270 AND 41842OF 2015 /-:--.-
. ,' . .,,^,,..,:\.' , ,1 '\
t 1 iri ft 2023 .
.s) A DISPOSING OF THE VVRIT PETITIONS VIIITHOUT COSTS c--
f2',.rtf."
?/-
\
u r?
.)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos.l47I 5, 16637,262i3,2682?, 12418, 15407, I540E.
1 55 I 7,',t 58 I 6. 1 7 228, 17 9 80, 26325, 2657 9, 26830, 26832 0t t
2005 & 7258 12420 ot 2006 I COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Jusiice Romesh Rongonothon)
Aggrieved by the order of the Centrol Administrotive Tribunol, Hyderobod in O.A.No.l076 of 2OO4 ond botch, doted 3l-03-2005, both the Centrol Boord of Customs ond Excise ond the cosuol lobourers engoged under vorious Commissionerotes ore before this Court Ihe cousol workmen (the oppliconts in the O.A.), were engoged by the Commissionerotes on differenl dotes between 1993 to 2003. The oppliconts were oggrieved by the foct lhot they were being poid from the contingency funds ond thot most of them, engoged cleoning.
IN sweeping ond gordening duties in the respondent- Orgonisotion, were soughl to be disengoged by introducti<>rr of c new procedure ()f ,:r.rt-so;rcing ond thereby )ng(lging their services through ccnl',.lctrrs - !
The >unol referred to the proceedirr(rs Coted Tri
'7 work for which no posts hod regulor been creoted/sonclioned moy be outsourced through service providers/confroctors ofter following the procedure in the GFRs ond thot poyment, for such outsourcing through service provider, moy be done from the provisions under 'Contingency Office Expenditure' ond not from ,Woges'. lt is olso stoted therein thot insofor qs cosuol workers on rolls, who hod ochieved temporory slotus, were concerned oppropriote oction be loken in terms of the guidelines in porogroph 3 of the Office Memorondum doted 06-06-2002.
It wos not in dispute before the Tribunol, thot except one opplicont, oll lhe others hod been engoged only ofter 0l-09-,l993 ond os such were not entifled even for gront of temporory stotus under the eorlier scheme of regulorisotion. The Tribunol exomined the rivol contentions ond, ofter toking note of the foct thol on order wos issued by the Government imposing bon on engogement of cosuol workers. ond keeping in view the judgment of lhe Supreme !l Cor;rt in teel Authority of lndio Lld. v. Noli,rncrl Union !
Woterfronl Workers & others , which hrld ov r,rrru ed the -
o the cose lhe oppliconts for the purpose of r;ulorizotion re r of their sen'ices, if necessory, by formuloting ct :cheme for the soid pu pose.
' 2oo1(7) s( c l rArR r99/ :c 6,1I)
I Sri V.Srinivos ond Sri B.G.Rovrnder Reddy, Ieorned counsel oppeoring on beholf of the cousol lobourers. would foirly concede thot in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Secrelory, Stole of Kornoloko v. UmoDevi3, the relief gronted by the Tribunol, insofqr os it hod directed thot ihe coses of the oppli
