IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 971 of 2010 Mukti Prasad Sharma and others ……….Petitioners. Versus Union of India and others …….Respondents Present : Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. The petitioners are working as casual labourers in the Wildlife Institute of India since 1985. In the year 1987 they were retrenched from services by their employer. Consequently thereafter the petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi (from hereinafter referred to as Labour Court). The said authority gave an award dated 5.5.2004 in favour of the petitioners directing that the retrenchment of the petitioners has been done in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore it was directed that they should be reinstated in service along with 30 per cent back-wages. This award of the Labour Court was challenged by the employer before Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court considering all the aspect upheld the decision of the Labour Court though the second part of the direction of the Labour Court for regularizing the workmen 2 (present petitioners) and for payment of same wages to them as are paid to the regularly appointed employees was not held to be proper and to that extent relief was not granted to the workmen (present petitioners). Another aspect which must be noted at this stage is that during the pendency of the writ petition before Delhi High Court, the employer had complied with the directions of the Labour Court and reinstated the petitioners. Therefore, the direction of the Labour Court for reinstatement of the petitioners in service has been complied with. The petitioners have now relied upon a scheme known as “Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Government of India, 1993” issued on 10.9.1993 by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, which was applicable for “grant of temporary status” to casual labourers. According to the petitioners, such casual workers who have completed 240 days were liable to be granted the temporary status. Since this benefit has been denied to the petitioners, hence the present writ petition. The case of the Wildlife Institute of India, on the other hand, is that there is presently no ongoing scheme for granting temporary status to the petitioners. At this stage, reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri M.C. Pant of an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.8.2003 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1719 of 2001 (Ishwar Bahadur Rana and 13 others vs. Union of India 3 and another) by which certain directions were given to the Wildlife Institute of India, which are as follows :- “Here in the instant case, the petitioners worked for more than ten years, therefore, we provide that the department of Wild Life Institute of Government of India shall frame a scheme of regularization of petitioners in phased manner and they shall be regularized on the basis of a seniority list prepared for all the petitioners and other casual labour by the department from the date of their initial appointment and regularization shall be made as per the said scheme on the basis of the seniority list prepared as such. Till all the petitioners are regularised, thy shall be paid minimum of pay scale.” Consequent to the directions in that writ petition, 14 casual labourers working in the Wildlife Institute of India were given the temporary status. The petitioners, inter alia, have claimed parity with the aforesaid workers. On this contention of the petitioners, counsel appearing for the Wildlife Institute of India Ms. Anjali Bhargava has stated that consequent to the Division Bench judgment dated 22.8.2003 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1719 of 2001 though in term of the scheme dated 10.9.1993 (on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners) those 14 workers were regularized, the petitioners cannot be regularized. The logic would be that those 14 workers had approached this Court in 2001 whereas in 2001 the present petitioners were not in 4 employment. Therefore, they cannot claim equality with those 14 workers. This contention of the respondents is entirely misconceived inasmuch as once the Labour Court has reinstated the petitioners in service vide its award dated 5.5.2004 which has been upheld by Delhi High Court, they are liable to be treated in continuous service since their employment. In other words, they were in fact the employees of Wildlife Institute of India in year 2001 when those 14 workers (petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1719 of 2001) approached this Court and in year 2008 as well when the orders of granting temporary status to them was made. Learned counsel representing the Wildlife Institute of India Ms. Anjali Bhargava has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India (Uoi) and Anr. Vs. Mohan Pal, etc.,etc. reported in AIR 2002 SC 2001, whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the grant of temporary status to casual employees had declined to grant such status because the scheme was not an ongoing scheme and was not in force at the time when such workmen were asking for a particular status. Hence, this scheme could not be invoked in their favour. In the present case, however, the said judgment can be of no relief to the respondents inasmuch as the respondents themselves have invoked the said scheme while granting temporary status to 14 workers vide order dated 29.10.2008. Since on 29.10.2008 the present petitioners were also in employment as casual labourers in Wildlife Institute of India, hence by implication the scheme 5 was in force. Therefore, as the respondents have given temporary status to those 14 workers (petitioners in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1719 of 2001) and the status of the present petitioners being the same as that of those workers, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for temporary status forthwith. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.7.2011 Avneet