Moti Lal S/o late Sahadeo vs Union Of India And Others

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-

i) That this Hon’ble be pleased to allow this O.A. and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 (Annexure No. A-1 to this O.A.).

ii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant on the post of Helper II.

iii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other reliefs, as the applicant might be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) That the cost of the proceeding may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Casual Labour on 15.7.1976 and was granted temporary status in the year 1986. PF account of the applicant was also opened on 31.3.1991 by the Divisional Railway Manager (Account) NCR, Allahabad on the basis of date of appointment dated 30.3.1986. Applicant was continuously working as Helper II and respondents were continuously paying the salary to the applicant. Applicant retired on 31.1.2018 but no regularization has been done till date. Applicant had made a representation on 15.6.2012 before respondent No. 1 and 2 for regularization but no action has been taken. Applicant filed O.A. No. 41/2013 before this Tribunal, which was decided by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 17.1.2013 with direction to decide the representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 3 months. Respondent No. 2 issued impugned order dated 4.10.2013 by which it is stated that regularization of service of applicant may be done as and when screening for regularization of working casual labour is arranged as per rules in future, the case of applicant will also be considered by the Screening Committee for the same along with other. Applicant has also filed Contempt Petition No. 80 of 2013 which was disposed off by the Tribunal on 3rd January, 2014 with the order that order of the Tribunal has been complied with by the respondents. However, it was observed that the respondents may consider the question of regularization of the applicant at the earliest whenever the screening committee is held. Till date, case of applicant for regularization has not been considered.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents filed counter Affidavit, stating that applicant was engaged as casual labour w.e.f. 1.7.1977 instead of 15.7.1976. It is further stated that applicant was re-engaged vide notice dated 5.2.2009 on the basis of settlement between the representative of Management, representative of Workman & Applicant before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur on 23.9.2008 on dated 23.9.2008 under Section 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is further stated that process of regularization will be done as and when screening for regularization of working casual labour will be held.

Rejoinder reply has also been filed by the applicant, in which applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the O.A. and denied the contents of the Counter Reply.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was engaged / appointed as casual labour on 15.07.1976. He was awarded CPC on 30.03.1986 and was granted temporary status in the year 1986 itself. Account of PF was also opened in the year 1991. The applicant was transferred to Etawah. When he approached the concerned authority, he was not permitted to join the post. Thereafter, the applicant made several representations but it was not taken into account. Thereafter, he approached this Tribunal through an OA. The said OA was also dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the applicant approached before Hon’ble High Court and no relief was granted to him affirming order passed in the OA. Thereafter, the applicant approached Industrial cum Labour Tribunal and vide order dated 23.09.2008 on the basis of compromise the applicant was reengaged with immediate effect without any back wages. Direction was also given that “previous period of work done/absent will be treated as per the Rules, to which the applicant was also agreed to”. Refereeing to the aforesaid it was further argued that the applicant was subscribing GPF, he has been awarded GPF. Although he was not getting any back wages but he was entitled for regularization. Learned counsel for the applicant refer to entire documents annexed with the OA and further argued that relief claimed in the OA may be allowed.

Learned counsel for respondents argued that as per settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur on 23rd September, 2008 between the Management of Divisional Railway Manager, N.C. Railway, Allahabad and their workman Shri Moti Lal, the applicant was re-engaged in service and in pursuance of direction given by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 41/2013 decided on 17th January, 2013, respondents have considered the representation of the applicant for regularization, passed a speaking order dated 4.10.2013 by which it is informed that his regularization of service may be done, as and when screening for regularization of working casual labour is arranged as per rules in future, his case will also be considered by the screening committee for the same along with others.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also filed written submission, by which it is stated that regularization of the applicant has already been settled by the competent court of law but he again and again chose different remedies which is not permissible in law. . It is further stated that competent authority after considering the grievances of the applicant has passed the speaking order dated 4.10.2013.

I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.

In the present case, applicant was engaged / appointed as casual labour on 15.07.1976. He was awarded CPC on 30.03.1986 and was granted temporary status in the year 1986 itself. Account of PF was also opened in the year 1991. The applicant was transferred to Etawah but when he approached the concerned authority, he was not permitted to join the post. The applicant approached Industrial cum Labour Tribunal and vide order dated 23.09.2008 on the basis of compromise, the applicant was reengaged with effect from 23.9.2008 without any back wages. However, vide impugned order dated 4.10.2013, respondents have stated that case of applicant for regularization will be considered as and when Screening for regularization will be held but till date case of applicant for regularization has never been considered. The date of retirement of the applicant is 31.1.2018.

Railway is a very big department and it was not difficult for them to regularize a casual labour, particularly when they themselves had admitted vide order dated 4.10.2013 that services of the applicant will be regularized as and when Screening Committee will be convened, but they failed to convene a Screening Committee till retirement of the applicant i.e. till the year 2018. Respondents reengaged the applicant after the settlement of Industrial cum Labour Tribunal and also agreed vide order dated 4.10.2013 for regularizing the service of the applicant but they have not convened any Screening Committee till the retirement of the applicant, whereas applicant had approached the department from pillar to post. He filed representations before the department, filed O.A. No. 41/2013 and Contempt Petition No. 80 of 2013 before this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance for regularization. In the contempt order dated 3rd January, 2014, this Tribunal clearly observed that the respondents may consider the question of regularization of the applicant at the earliest whenever the screening committee is held. But after lapse of so many years, respondents have deliberately and arbitrarily have not convened any Screening Committee for considering the case of the applicant for regularization.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that respondents themselves have admitted to regularize the services of the applicant vide order date 4.10.2013 but they failed to do so even after lapse of more than 9 years, I am of the view that O.A. deserves to be allowed and applicant is entitled for regularization.

Accordingly, O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 4.10.2013 is quashed. Respondents are directed to convene a screening Committee to consider the case of applicant for regularization retrospectively i.e. before the date of retirement of the applicant and give all consequential benefits to the applicant, if admissible as per rules. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.