Mani Ram & Ors. vs State of U.P.& Ors.

By means of this writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the award dated 242003, Annexure1 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2.

The petitioners are alleged to have been working from 199697 on daily wages in respondent''s organisation. The petitioners allege that they are working regularly and are being paid daily wage salary. As they are working from a long period as such the petitioners approached the authorities for regularisation. When nothing was done, then petitioners approached the State Government raising a dispute on an application filed by them. A reference was made to the Industrial Court and the Labour Court without considering the fact that petitioners are working from 1996 and nature of work of the petitioners is permanent and various posts in the respondent''s organisation are still vacant, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for regularisation. But the Labour Court without considering the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners has rejected the claim by its order dated 242003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court.

As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, the matter is being decided finally with the consent of the parties. Sri S. N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a chart to this effect was submitted regarding continuous working of the petitioners from 1996 and 1997 onwards. Further reliance has been placed upon a statement of the official of the respondent Sri Lalta Prasad Tripathi who was working as shift incharge in Allahabad Jal Sansthan. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforesaid statement, it is clear that petitioners are continuously working and names of the petitioners are enrolled in the muster roll and they are being paid salary month to month. It has also been stated by the said witness that they have been working from 6 to 7 years on the date when the statement was made on 1092002. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as there are various vacancies and the petitioners are working continuously but are being treated as daily wagers and there is admission by the respondent to this effect that they are working continuously, as such the Labour Court has erred in law in ignoring this aspect of the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (108) FLR 826 : (2006 AIR SCW 452). The Workman, Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. v. The Management, Bhurkunda Colliery and reliance has been placed upon paras 12, 13 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment which are quoted below:

"12. In the matter of regularization, the main concern of the Court is to see that the rule of law is respected and to ensure that the executive acts fairly and give a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State being a model employer should not exploit the employees nor take advantage of helplessness and misery of either the unemployed person or the person concerned, as the case may be.

Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is regular need for his services on a regular post and accordingly considers regularization.

It is also our bounden duty to give expression to the legislative intention for creating a healthy environment leading to proper understanding and cooperation and in true sense a partnership between the employers and the employees in cases of industrial disputes."

In such a situation learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the nature of appointment of petitioners are daily wager and as and when there is requirement, petitioners are called and according to that a salary to that effect is being paid. It has further been submitted that the nature of work is not permanent but it is casual, therefore, their claim cannot be considered for regularisation. It has further been submitted on behalf of respondents that petitioners have failed to prove that the nature of appointment of the petitioners are permanent and on sanctioned posts. If a person has not worked continuously 240 days in one calendar year, he cannot claim regularisation. Further submission has been made on behalf of the respondents that the witness produced on behalf of the respondent clearly states that the nature of appointment of the petitioners are daily wager and as and when the work is required, the petitioners are called and the nature of work is not permanent and salary to petitioners are being paid from the acquaintance roll. Therefore, Labour Court considered all these aspects of the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioners.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record.

The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record has recorded a finding of fact that from the perusal of the various documents it is clear that all the petitioners are not working on sanctioned post. The nature of appointment of the petitioners is also not Permanent, therefore, if the appointment is not in accordance with law and the nature of work is not permanent, a workman cannot claim regularisation. The Apex Court in 2005 SCC (Labour & Service 609: (AIR 2005 SC 2179). Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani has held that 240 days continuous service rendered by a temporary workman does not give right to claim permanency. Workman has to prove that he has continuously worked beyond 240 days. In judgment Today, 2005 (9) ESC 163, Sunder Nagar, District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai, the Apex Court has held that a workman has to prove and burden is upon the workman that he has worked 240 days in one calendar year. Unless and until the workman is able to prove from the record that nature of work is permanent on a sanctioned post, though the nature of appointment may be daily labour, a workman can claim regularisation. But unless and until it is proved by the workman, he cannot claim regularisation and the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Further in 2005 SCC (Labour and Service), 372 : (AIR 2005 SC 1954). Management of Madurantakam Corpn. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan Apex Court has held that finding recorded by the Labour Court is a finding of fact and there is very limited scope of interference by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the aforesaid fact, I find that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is a finding of fact based on relevant record and needs no interference by this Court.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.