HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8676 of 2003 Dated 6.7.2011 Between: D.Gayatri Devi. …Petitioner. And: Indian Airlines Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Airlines House, 113, Guruddwara Rakabgunj Road, New Delhi and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8676 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not following the scheme for empanelment/casual engagement/absorption as arbitrary, bad in law, unjust and unsustainable and consequently, direct the respondents to follow the scheme for empanelment/casual engagement/absorption in its letter and spirit for eventual absorption of the casuals who have satisfied the conditions stipulated therein. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she has submitted an application for appointment to the respondent-authorities as a result of which, she was engaged by the 3rd respondent vide his reference dated 29.5.2000 as a casual typist from 1.6.2000 for a period of 77 days or till such time, the vacancy is filled/operated/the regular incumbent reports for duty whichever is earlier. She has reported to duty before the Deputy General Manager (E) Avionics as directed and she had discharged her duties to the best satisfaction of all concerned. By reference dated 8.8.2000, directions were issued by the 3rd respondent again to engage her as a casual typist for a further period of 90 days from 19.8.2000 to 16.11.2000. After she had completed the said term, the respondents have not given her any assignment. Since the term for which she had been engaged, had expired on 16.11.2000 and the respondents have not engaged her, she had to submit representations to the Honourable Ministers for civil Aviation and Communications and the 1st respondent highlighting her grievances and request that suitable extension be given. She had offered to work anywhere in India. In pursuance of the directions by the respondent-authorities, she had been issued letter dated 18.5.2001 in which it was stated that there is no provision for automatic absorption in the rules and persons who worked on casual daily rated basis cannot get absorbed. It is her further case that persons engaged on casual basis like typists, drivers, telephone operators, helpers, peons and safiawalas cannot be said to have been appointed for a one time job. As the respondents have not regularized their services, some of the persons engaged on a casual basis have approached this Court by instituting W.P.No.1116 of 2001 and batch. Some of the petitioners in the batch have also prayed a relief that their cases may be considered by filling the permanent vacancies. This Court dismissed the said writ petition and batch. It is further stated that the balance of convenience lies in her favour as the respondents have sufficient work and their own statement shows that they are not getting persons of skilled trades for filling up the vacancies on regular basis. Therefore, she prays this Court to direct the respondents to follow the scheme for empanelment/casual engagement/absorption in its letter and spirit for eventual absorption of the casuals. Hence, this writ petition. Respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the material allegations. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the present writ petition is based on a single issue viz., engagement of casuals in the respondent company in accordance with the scheme approved by this Court. The petitioner had worked as casual typist only on one occasion in 2000 and her name was included in the list of ex- casuals prepared for the purpose of engagement on casual basis as per the availability of work and in accordance with the scheme for engagement of casuals as approved by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2001. In fact, the petitioner has been employed as casual typist from May, 2003 and she is still working as on date. The very purpose for which the case is filed i.e., engagement of casuals as per the scheme, is already being followed by the respondent company on it’s own, in implementation of the order of this Court. The engagement of the petitioner itself is sufficient proof in this regard. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. On 2.5.2003, this Court while admitting the writ petition issued notice. On 3.11.2003, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.11188 of 2003 made the following order: “There shall be interim direction to the respondents to engage the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible, strictly in accordance with the scheme evolved by the respondents if the same is in vogue as on today.” Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief sought for in the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.241 of 2002 and batch dated 10.8.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the petitioner is qualified to hold the post of typist and she has been employed in the respondent-Corporation until January, 2011 and thereafter, her services were discontinued without any notice. He would further submit that the respondent-Corporation had formulated a scheme for absorbing the services of the casual employees by following the seniority and that in terms of the said seniority, certain casual employees approached this Court seeking for absorption under the scheme. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the order impugned is just and proper and it needs no interference. After arguing the case at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.241 of 2002 and Batch and a relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “After taking into consideration the submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material on record, the question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for regularization of their services and it has to be decided by the respondent corporation on merits, since the respondent corporation has already framed a scheme for regularization of service of the persons similarly placed as the appellants, whereunder the appellants can also take a shelter seeking for regularization of their services. In view of the same, it would suffice in the interest of justice, if the respondent corporation is directed is directed to consider the case of the appellants taking into account the seniority or such other qualifications in terms of the scheme enunciated by the respondent corporation and pass appropriate orders. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the decision shall be communicated to the appellants. If the appellants are aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent corporation, it is open for them to move the Labour Court and seek appropriate decision by adducing necessary documentary and oral evidence. Subject to the above, all the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs.” Following the decision of the division bench of this Court rendered in W.A.No.241 of 2002 and batch, on 10.8.2009, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner taking into account the seniority or such other qualifications in terms of the scheme enunciated by the respondent corporation and pass appropriate orders. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent- corporation, it is open for her to move the Labour Court and seek appropriate decision by adducing necessary documentary and oral evidence. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 6.7.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.8676 of 2003 Dated 6.7.2011