Ran Bahadur Singh vs Labour Court Faizabad

Rajan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed in the year 1998 challenging an award of the Labour Court dated 24.12.1997. The reference to the Labour Court was as to whether the employer had acted illegally and unjustifiable in not regularizing the services of the workman on the post of Dairyman, if so the benefits to which he was entitled etc. The Labour Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them opined that though the initial appointment on daily wages was on the post of Dairyman but with effect from 1989 he did not work on the said post and in fact the said post was not vacant, but, at the same time the Labour Court opined that the work of Store Kooli was being taken from the petitioner since 1989, however, as the reference was with regard to the post of Dairy Man it was answered by saying that there was no reason for regularizing the services of the petitioner.

When this writ petition was entertained against the aforesaid award an interim order was passed on 11.09.2001 in the following terms:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite case having been shown in supplementary cause list.

Petitioner''s case is that he has been working as Dairyman since the year 1985 but he has been orally stopped from performing his duties w.e.f. 30.11.2000. There is finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was working as Store Kooli. In the counter affidavit filed by the opp-parties the factum of working of the petitioner is admitted.

In view of the above, in case, the work and post are available, the petitioner shall continue as daily wager on the same terms and conditions on which he was working on or before 30.11.2000."

However, it is the admitted factual position as borne out during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties who are present that the petitioner was disengaged on 30.11.2000. The case of the opposite parties is that in fact the petitioner was not working since prior to the passing of the interim order dated 11.09.2001.

The relief sought in the instant writ petition is as under:-

"(a) that an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing Annexure No. 1 dated 24.12.97 and communicated on 12.5.1998 to this writ petition.

(b) That an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to commanding the opposite party No. 2 and 3 for regularisation of the service of the petitioner on the post of Dairyman or store Assistant.

(c) That an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to restrain the opposite party No. 2 for terminating the petitioner service."

The subject matter in issue herein is the validity of the award of the Labour Court which is confined to the question of entitlement of the workman to regularization of his services on the post of Dairyman. There is a finding that after 1989 the petitioner did not work as Dairyman, but, the work which was taken was of Store Kooli.

Considering the fact that admittedly the petitioner is not working since 30.11.2000 either as Dairyman or as Store Kooli there is nothing in this writ petition to be adjudicated whatsoever as the claim for regularization, if any, would be considered only if the person was working at least at the time of filing of the writ petition, whereas, in fact he was disengaged prior to it. As regards the interim order it was a conditional order which took note of the finding of the Labour Court that the Workman was performing the duties of Store Kooli. It also takes note of the fact that he was stopped from working w.e.f. 30.11.2000 i.e. prior to the filing of this writ petition.

The contention of Ms. Sujata Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of this Court reported in 2000 SCD 17; Arunesh Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors is that even if the Workman was working on daily wages there had to be a written order of termination of his service, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated and be considered for regularization of his services.

On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment the Court finds that there was a written appointment order in the said case which stated that the petitioner was appointed on vacant Class-IV post and he was to continue till further orders, therefore, the observation made in para 4 of the said judgment which are being relied by the petitioner, as noted herein above.

In the present case, what to say about the validity of petitioner''s disengagement there is no challenge to the disengagement, whether prior to the writ petition or thereafter, if any, in the first place. Neither any industrial dispute was raised in respect thereof nor there is any specific relief claimed herein. As regards the interim order passed by this Court on 11.09.2001 is concerned, it was a conditional order passed after noting the facts in the first two paragraphs to the effect, if the work and post are available, the petitioner shall continue on daily wager on the same terms and conditions on which he was working on or before 30.11.2000. In this context Shri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no post of Store Kooli. He says that the interim order was ex-parte.

The counter affidavit of the opposite parties along with an application for vacation of the interim order was filed way back in November, 2001. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that there is no post of Store Kooli and that the organization is running in loss.

The disengagement of the petitioner on 30.11.2000 was subsequent to the rendering of the award, therefore, a subsequent cause of action could not form part of the subject matter of these writ proceedings.

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not worked since 30.11.2000. There is nothing on record to indicate that he worked even after passing of the interim order. In these circumstances, there is not much that can be done in favour of the petitioner- Workman who was admittedly engaged as a Daily Wager specially when the scope of the reference before the Labour Court was regularization of his services on the post of Dairyman, therefore, for the reasons already mentioned herein above, the Court does not find any good ground for interfering in the matter at this stage, especially in the absence of any relief sought in the writ petition challenging the termination, which could have very well been raised before the Labour Court etc. However, this aspect of the matter is left open to be agitated by the Workman before the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, if permissible in law.

In the event the Workman succeeds before the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunals, assuming the matter is referred to it, then, the question of regularization may be raised by him again as and when the occasion arises.

Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed.