BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. 2-1 (4-/2006 isigl& ssnc PETITIONERS ^ .^7 '^fs/ ^,7 ^.-A?~^.;/ .'•'''^"s. ~.** i>'ro>"" ^h?-'" ^ ^y ^ . G ^ VY^ f g%s?-f^* |: A<9;??5^y RESPONDENTS 1. <" 2. 3. 4. 5. Gokul Ram, son of Shri Motru Ram, aged about 36 years, Hriday Ram, son of Shri Jhitaku Ram, aged about 49 years, Rajkuinar Yadav, aged about 41 years, son of Shri Gorelal Rajput, Videshi Ram, aged about 52 years, son of Shri Heera Rain. Mahesh Kuinar, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Asharam. AU the Petitioners are working with Chliattisgarh Rajya Matatsya Mahasangh Maryadit, Raipur (C.G.) AU are resident of village and post Salue, District .' Durg (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, tfarough - fhe Secretary, Secretary Fishary D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Matatsya Mahasangh Maryadit, Raipur (€.,G.) through - Its Managing Director. WRIT PETIT_IQN_UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ tidon No. 2114 of2006 Ptetitioners Gokul Rain & others Versus Respondents : State ofC.G&others Post fer order on 3. •>->>May, 2006 AF^ Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge V9^ r HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Singie Benclt: Kon'Me Sari Satish K. AgaIIiotri, J. W.P. No. 2114 OF 2006 Petitioneis ; Gokul Ram & Others. Versus Respoadents State of C.G. aad ofhers. Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for fb.e petitioners. Shri SushU Dubey, OoverEuiient Advocate for fhe State. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, couusel for the caveater. ORDER ( -?^May,2006) Accordiag to the petitioneis, the petitioners were appoiated on daily wages basis by fhe Fisheries Corporation of Madhya Pradesh, The petitioners were engaged as daity wage workers by Fisheries Developuient Corporation iu Madhya Pradesh during fhe period between 1987 to 1989. Adnuttedly, the petitioners were not appoiuted after proper competition aniong quali&ed persons pursuaat any advertisement. The appoiatnient of the petitioners was on daily wages basis, however, the petituners contmued ia service tiU order dated 31.3.2000 was passed. The services of fhe petitioners came to aa end, on ttie ground fhat fheir services were no longer required. The petitioners were paid retrenchinent compensation under Section 25-F of the ludustrial DMputes Act, 1947 (hereiaaft.er referred to as "I.D.Acf). 3. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners submits that, siace retrenclunent coiupensation was paid at fhe ttme of removal of the petitioners frova service, the petitioners are aoverued bv fhe provisions ofthe I.D. Act. 4. On query, whether fhe respondent-Corporatiou is au. Industay, tbe petitioners categoricaUy adiait that ftie respondent No.2 eaiployer is not au Industay. Since the respondent No,2 itself has resorted to the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act for grant of retrenclnnent conipensation, the petitioner is govemed by tbe provisions ofthel. D. Act, 5. The petitioiiers furtber submit that the petitioners' removal order should be declared as invaUd, on the ground that the petitioners have served for niore than. 25 vears on daily wages basis. The subniission of the petitioners, fhat the respondent No.2 be treated as Industry, on fhe grouad that the respondent No.2 had paid retrenchinent coinpensation before renioval of services of fhe petitioners, deserves to be rejected, on sunple groiind that by referring to certain provisions for graat of conipensation, tbe respondent No.2 does not become aa Industiy. Tbe respondent No.2 is a society and has not been declared as aa Industay so as to attract fhe provisions oftudustrial Laws. 6. The Constitution Bench ofthe Supreiue Court ia fhe case of Secretarv. State of Karaataka & Others Vs. Umadevl & Others (2006 (4) SCALE) 197 held as under: Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality ia pubUc einploym.eD.t is a basic feature of our Coustitution and suice the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certaizily be disabled froiu passiug au order upholdmg a violation ofArticle 14 or in ordering the overlookuig ofthe need to comply with requireinents of Article 14 read wifh Article 16 of fhe Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheine for pubUc emplo5rment, ttus Court white layiag down fhe law, has necessarily to hold ttiat unless the appoiutuient is in terms of tbe relevaiit rules aad after a proper competition among qualified persons, fhe same would not confer aay right on the appointee. If it is a contractual appointment, fhe appoiatment comes to an end at fhe end of the contract, if it were au eagagem.ent or appoiatment on daily wages or casual basis, fhe same would coine to aa end when it is discontmued. Similarty, a teaiporaiy employee could not claun to be niade permaaeut on fhe expuy of his terms of appoiatment. It has also to be clarified fhat merely because a teniporaiy eniployee or a casual wage worker is eontuiued for a tiine bevond fhe tenn of his appointaient, he would not be entifled to be absorbed iu regular semce or niade permanent, nierely on the strength of such contiD.uan.ee, if thc origmal appoiutment was not made by foUowiag a due process of selection as envisased bv the relevaat rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent reKular recruitment at fhe iustance of temporary employees whose period of emplovinent has coine to aii end or of ad hoc einployees who by the veiy aature of their appoiataient, do not acquire aoy right. High Courts actmg uuder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue direcdons for absorption, reBularization, or pertuaaent continuance unless the recruittaent itselfwas inade regularly and in tenns of the coustitutional scheiae. Merely because, an eniployee had continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as litigious einployment' in the earlier part of fhe judgment, he would not bc entitled to aay r^ht to be absorbed or inade pemianent ia the semce, In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuin^ iateriin dn-ectkins, siuce, after all, if ultunately fh.e eniployee approachiag it is found entitled to reUef, it niay be possible for it to inould the relief iu such a inanaer that ultunatelv no preiudice wffl be caused to him, whereas aa iuterim. direction to coiitinue his euiploviaent would hold uu the regular procediire for selection. or unpose ou the State the burden ofpayiug au eiaployee who is reaUy not requiicd. The Courts m.ust be careful in ensuruie fhat fhey do not uiterfere unduly with the economic arrangenient of its afifairs ^'::^-:.'i.:: WSSH)',.>=.''' £<? by the State or its iastrumentalities or lend theniselves the iustruiuents to facilitate fhe bypassing of the coustitutional and statutoiy mandates." 7. In the facts aad circuiustances of fhe case, where it is adnuttcd case of fh.e petitioners, that fhe petitioners were appoiuted on daily wages basis not on fhe basis of advertisem.ent or open competition, fhe petitioners ha.ve no r^ht to continue ia the employment aud fhe inipugued order of reinoval dated 31.3.2006 camiot be faulted wifh. For ftie reasons stated above, fhis petition is dismissed at adniission stage suirunarily. Gouri Sd/- SatishKAgnihotn Judge