IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.1531 of 2002 Date of decision: 6.8.2008. Union of India and others. ....Petitioners -Versus- Bhuri Singh and another ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (For short Tribunal) decided on 3.10.2001 passed in O.A. No.1146-HP-96. Briefly stated the admitted facts of the case are that the respondents 1 & 2 who were the applicants before the Tribunal were engaged as daily-rated Mazdoors in September, 1995. It is not disputed that they worked as such till 15.7.1996 when their services were dispensed with by oral orders. The applicants filed an Original Application. before the Tribunal challenging the orders on various grounds. According to the applicants they had completed 240 days of service and were qualified to be granted temporary status in terms of the Scheme formulated by the petitioners on 7th November, 1989 2 brought into force w.e.f. Ist October, 1989. Another limb of their argument is that their services were dispensed with without following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court cannot put its seal on an oral order of termination. Every public authority is supposed to pass orders in writing. The services of an employee even a daily rated employee, cannot be dispensed with by oral orders. In fact the stand of the present petitioners before the Tribunal was that the services of the employees were retrenched w.e.f. 15.7.1996. According to the petitioners the services of the respondents were terminated as the project on which they were employed was complete. Even if the Project had come to an end the order of termination must be in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. A written order of retrenchment should have been passed alongwith the notice and payment of retrenchment compensation. Admittedly no written order has been passed and no retrenchment compensation paid. If the services were to be retrenched they had to be retrenched by a written order and after following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act which admittedly has not been followed. Therefore, this part of the order quoted above calls for no interference. The Tribunal while allowing the O.A. and quashing the order of termination and directing the respondents to reinstate the applicants in service, also directed that their case for regularization be considered in terms of the scheme dated 7th November, 1989. The petitioners filed a Review Petition. Even a perusal of the Review 3 Petition which is attached as Annexure P-4 clearly shows that the review was sought only in respect of the directions that the case of the applicants be considered for grant of temporary status. However, with regard to the scheme, the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Gagan Kumar, (2005) 6 SCC 70, while considering a similar scheme, held as follows: 6. Clause 4 of the Scheme is very clear that the conferment of "temporary" status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme. The Tribunal has taken the view that this is an ongoing scheme and as and when casual labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get "temporary" status. We do not think that clause 4 of the Scheme envisages it as an ongoing scheme. In order to acquire "temporary" status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and he should have also rendered continuous service of at least one year which means that he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week. From clause 4 of the Scheme, it does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied for the purpose of giving "temporary" status to all the casual workers, as and when they complete one year's continuous service. Of course, it is up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is found necessary that the casual labourers are to be given "temporary" status and later they are to be absorbed in Group 'D' posts. The Supreme Court held that it was a one time scheme and temporary status can be given only to those employees who were working on 1.9.1993. In the present case scheme was formulated in the year 1989 and the employees were engaged in 1995. Therefore, applying the ratio of the Apex Court it is apparent that the directions of the Tribunal that the petitioners should consider the employees for grant of temporary status is against law and is liable to be set-aside. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The directions of the learned Tribunal directing the 4 petitioners to consider the case of the employees for grant of temporary status in terms of the scheme dated 7th November, 1989 is set-aside. However, the order of the learned Tribunal in so far as it quashes the oral order of termination and directs reinstatement of the employees is upheld. The stay order stands vacated. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 6, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge