THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.27206 of 1999 Date: 24.02.2010 Between: M. Ramakrishna … Petitioner and Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Visakhapatnam – 530 031. … Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.27206 of 1999 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in re-engaging and continuing the petitioner as a casual assistant as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondent to re-engage him as a casual assistant and absorb him in future vacancies. The petitioner was engaged as a liaison assistant on daily wages in the Hyderabad office of the 1st respondent in three spells. The first from 01.05.1993 to 28.07.1993, the second from 30.07.1993 to 29.04.1994 and thereafter till 28.07.1994. The petitioner’s disengagement from service was without notice. His grievance is that the respondent, a public sector undertaking, was engaging employees in short spells with breaks in service. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged as a causal employee to work as a liaison assistant at the Hyderabad office to meet exigencies of work for a period of three months. The said order of engagement clearly specified the terms and conditions and, in all the three spells, the petitioner was paid Rs.75/- per day for the period of actual work and, after his last spell of engagement which ended on 28.07.1994, his services were not engaged thereafter. The relief sought for in this writ petition, i.e., regularization of the services of the petitioner, cannot be granted in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi[1], and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand[2]. Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, submit that since the petitioner was engaged by the respondent as a casual employee, this Court should atleast direct them to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act and engage the petitioner in service as and when such need arises. The petitioner has neither alleged violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition nor has he sought for such a relief in the writ petition. I see no reason, therefore, to grant such a relief. I have no reason to doubt that the respondent corporation would adhere to all laws applicable to workmen including the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 24.02.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1