O R D E R

The petitioner was engaged as a Part-time worker, under the respondent-Board, w.e.f. 1.7.1989. In the afore capacity, he rendered un-interrupted, and, continuous service, from 1.7.1989 to 31.3.1996. However, during the afore tenure of his service, as a Part-Time Worker, under the respondent-Board, the respondent-Board started meteing fictional, and artificial breaks, in his service, rather for disabling him to complete 240 days of continuous service, in each of the calendar years concerned. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 1.4.2001. Thereafter, he was re-engaged on 10.8.2007 by the respondent-Board, hence on a work order basis, and, in the afore capacity, he continued to perform his duties, uptill 19.5.2011. Subsequently, on 20.5.2011, the respondent-Board rather started administering artificial/fictional breaks, in the service of the petitioner, only for purportedly disabling him to render 240 days’ of continuous service in each calendar year.

2. The writ petitioner, through the institution of the instant petition, seeks condonation of the apposite purported artificial and fictional breaks, which became administered in his services, hence by the respondent- Board. He also seeks, through the institution of the instant petition, the making of a mandamus upon the respondent-Board to grant him the status, of, a daily waged employee, under, the respondents.

3. The relief, as canvassed in the writ petition, for condonation of purported artificial, and, fictional breaks, as became meted, in his services, by the respondent- Board, rather for disabling him to render 240 days of continuous service, in each of the calendar years concerned, the same cannot be accepted, by this Court. The reason(s) being, that the afore was accordable to the writ petitioner, only upon a notification, existing on record, and, it being suggestive that therethrough, the respondent-Board, had meted the purported fictional and artificial breaks, in the service of the petitioner, under the respondent-Board, hence as a Part-Time Worker. However, no such notification exists on record.

Therefore, the afore relief is denied to the writ petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, want of the afore notification on record, rather, enabled the writ petitioner, to redress his grievances, as, arising from the afore administration of purported fictional and artificial breaks, in his service by the respondent, through his raising an industrial dispute, qua therewith, and, the raised industrial dispute, by the workman, resulting in a reference being made by the appropriate government, to the Labour Court, Industrial Dispute concerned, for a decision being meted thereon(s). However, the afore remedy remained un-recoursed by the writ petitioner. Therefore, on score (supra) also the afore relief cannot be granted to the writ petitioner.

5. The effect of the afore discussion, is that, the policy borne in Annexure RA/III, hence mandating that employees rendering service under the respondent-

Board, on a Part-Time basis, would become enabled to cause conversion of their part-time services into daily waged services, only upon, theirs satisfying the criteria spelt, therein, inasmuch as, upon theirs completing 10 years of continuous service, as Part Time Worker(s), under, the respondent-Board, as on 31.3.2006, remaining uncomplied with rather by the petitioner. The afore reason is founded upon the fact that he did not, in each of the relevant calendar year, hence commencing from 1989 to 1996, render the requisite 10 years of service, nor he rendered the apposite period of qualifying service with 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year concerned. Moreover, even after 1996 upto 2001, the ordained period of qualifying service(s), remained unrendered by the workman.

6. Since after 10.8.2007, the services of the petitioner became availed not by the respondent, rather he was working under a contractor, namely, one Raghubir Singh, therefore, for the afore phase/spe