^"p HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.2of200& Petitioners 1. 2. Vereus M.P.Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam, Through iis Managing Direciar, Bhopal (M.P.) The Man^ier, M.P-Rajya Beej Evam Fann Vikas Nigam, Unit Pokhra, Di^rict Raipur. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ralpur, Dis&ict Raipur. The Presid^it, Chhattisgartt Krishi And Van Karamchari Sangh, 25/12 Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (Chhaltisgarh). Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam, Throu^t te Managing Director.Ba^ Bhawan, Mahasamund Road, Teiibandha, Raipur {C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226Q27 OF THE COSTiTUTjON OFfNDiA Respondents 1. 2. 3. SB: Hon'bfe Mr. Justscs Satish K. Agnihotri Shri ShashsnfcJhakur, Advocatefor (he peStionefs. Shri H. B. Agarwai, Senior Advocate vAh Shri J. K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER <th (Passed on this 24'" day of Aprit, 2<X)7) . By this petition, the petiSoner has praysd for a suitabte writ or direcb'on to quash the impugned award daied 21 September, 2001 (Annexure P/8) passed by ths Labour Court, Raipur in Case No. 63/!.D.AcVRsference/97. _^——-~" "--"' >!.$'iS?;fi*;-'''-.;u!"'w»a •F?^j 2. The brief facts, in nutshell. are that the respondent No.2-Union raised an industrial dispute whksh was referred to the Labour Court, Raipur, in fche foilowjng terms :- Whether the regularization of Shri Raju and 39 other labourers MTOS valid and correct ? not, what relief they are entitled to and what directjon could bs givsn to the smployer ? 3. Ths respondent No.2 filed statement of claim in which it was stated that the labourere were engaged on daily wages in the Pokhra farm of the State Seed and Farm Devetopment Corporation. They were vrorking for more than 240 days in a year but the petifioners have not regularized their services. The petitionere have submitted ttieir counter, denying the averments made in ttie statement of claim, stafing that there is no regutar work for ttie labourers, ttiey were being engaged for seasonal work. The agriculhire work starte from the last week of June or first week of July and the work remain available only ti!l the third week'of Decembsr in ever/ year. As the asricutture work is seasonsl work, therefore, the respondent No.2 are not enStied for rsguiarization. 4. After recording the evidence of botti the parties and having heard leamed counse! appearing for the parties, the Labour Court vide impugned award dated 21 September, 2001 (Annexure P/6) passed in Case No. S3/I.D.Act/Reference/97, directed the petiSoners to categories and regularize forty labourere w.e.f. 19.9.1997. It was further directed to pay them salary, allowances and o&ierfacilities, akin to ofiier r^ular labourers v/.e.f. 19.9.1997. 5. !n view crf the setBed position <rf taw as enunaated by a Constitutional Beroh of Uie Suprem® Court in the case crf Secretary, Stafe of Kamataka and otters Vs. Umatfew' 'whhA was fellowed later on in various detfeions by ttie Supreme Court, viz. AesGunts 0 oer(A8i) A.P.SRTC sKioffiws vs. P. QsaRdrs Sekhara Rao andtrthers2, Surihcfer ftasad Trwan' vs. U.P. Rsfya Krishf' Utpadan Mandi' Parishad and othersi Nagar M^apaiBta fnow Munf'ciFpa/ Cotpnj vs. State of U.P. and offiers and U.P. State ftead Tran^wt Corpwatton vs. Whm SSngh , daBy ratod, temporary or ad hoc appointses have no right to the post as 8wir app<rintment v/as not in wcorelance wth ths constitutiona! sdieme of the appointment and not in accordance w any Rules, Regulations, as framed under the prosnso to Articte 309 <rf the Constitutton of India. In the present case the respondent No.2 were appointed for seasona! work, not even on daily wages. S. Leamec! counsel appearing fbr tte respondent No.2 ctesd a decision of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in tte case of Oil and Nafairal Gas Corporation Hd. Vs. Engineering Wazdoor Sangh whwain white considering the quesfion of entiUement of seasonal workers for regularization. it was held at the seasonat workers cannot be treated on par with regular employees and cannot be adjusted in permanent employment when their need was onty seasonal. However, it was directed that till ttie wortonen are not absorbed against regular vacancies in the concemed category no recruihnent from outsid® will be made and even in mattere of seisonal emptoyment the said workmen shall be first considered for employment before any other wortanen are engaged for the same type of work in the fie!d. 7. ln view of the foregoing the impugned awari dated 21 September, 2001 (Annexure P/6) passed by <he Labour Court, Raipur in Case No. 63/I.D.Act/Reference/97 is set aside, witti ihe direction to the pstitioners that the case of the responctent hto^/labourere be considsrsd in terms of the order passed by tte Hon'bte Supreme Court in the matterofOii and Natural Gas Cofporation ltd.(supra). 1 2 3 4 5 6. Thakur With the above direction this petition is aliowed. Ho order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (a)06) 4 SCC 1 (2006) 7 SCC 488 (2006) 7 SCC 684 2006 AiRSCW 2497 2006 AIR SCTV5159 2007(1) M.P.L.1443