Is T ^^^^ss^s3^^:s^si^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^S& ^^^ :i^^^^^^^^^^^L^r^'''?:1^^^'^^^^''^<-v'^ -^: -^A3 ' - • ^<T? «: L^.\t-:^./\^.f-../^^.^^.y7 r'.^-<Y'^v/V^A^-A-^-'c-.-^-/^A^/^^-/>-^^.^-^~^/ INTI-iE HISI-l*GOHRTOFeHMAT1'ISGAR;HATBlLASPl..)RrC.G.y - WRITPETITION N0. ^vs)8 /2004 PETITIONERS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Conservator of Forest, Raipur Circle, Raipur (CG) The Divisional Forest Officer, Territorial North Forest Division, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS The Labour Court, through : Its Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.) //^ y /f'^l^!^^ y. ^•~~-<^' "^ '/g]^| 4. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Raipur(C.G.) The President; for Van Chowkidar Sangh, through : Bishouharam Sahu, son of Keju Ram Sahu, residenof village Tulsi Baradera, PO Mandir Hasaud, Tah. And Distt.Raipur (C.G.) Chandrodaya Singh Thakur, through : Van Chowkidar Sangh Vilalge Tulsi Baradera, Post Mandir Hasaud. Tah. And Distt. Raipur (CG) -^ Bishouha Ram Sahu, through Van Chowkidar Sangh village Tulsibaradera, PO Mandir Hasaud, Tah and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Bharat.Kumar Uike, through Van Chowkidar Sangh, village Tulsibaradera, Post Mandir Hasaud, Tah and Distt. Raipur (CG) Lakhram Thakur, through Van Chowkidar Sangh, village Tulsibaradera, Post Mandir Hasaud, Tah and Distt. Raipur (CG) 8. Ashok Kumar Kaushik, through Van Chowkidar Sangh village Tulsibaredera, Post Mandir Hasaud, Distt. Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER / ORDERS, DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS. •" .-'' > '! HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATHSGARH: BILASPUR Sla^e Beach: Hoa'ble Shri Satisli K. Agaibotori, J. W. P. Wo. 4198 of 2004 Petitioners : State of Chhattisgarh & othera Versus Respondeat : The Labour Court & others Shri G.D. Waswani, Goverrunent Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Satendi^. Sahu, couusel for the Respondents No. 4 to 8. ORAL ORDER (28th July, 2006) 1. Iu the present case, the respoadents No. 4 to 8 were appouited on Daily W^es Basis as inuster roU eiaployees ou the basis of availability of work. Semces of the respondents No. 4 to 8 were discontinued in fhe month of December, 1998. 2. According to teamed counsel for the petitkiners, fhe respondents No. 4 to 8 have no right to be regularized on fhe posts where fhey were appointed on daily •wages basis on availabitity ofwork. 3. Leamed coimsel relics on decision of the Supreme Court in ftie case ofSecretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Vmadevi (3) and others { (2006) 4 SCC 1} and submits that the award passed by the labour Coiirt is iUegal. He furthcr submits that fhe Labour Court has not considered fhe status of the respondents No. 4 to 8/einployees, as their appointment was strictfy ou the basis of availabUity ofwork on daUy wages basis. 4. Learued counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 8 submits that it is true fhat in view of the decision ofthe Suprenie Court in the case ofSecretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. ,/'^ Umadevi (3) and others (supra) fheir may not be aay right for regularization of daily wa®esemployees. However, ia the facts and circuinstances of fhe case when fhe respondents No. 4 to 8 have worked for about 18 yeara, they caanot be thrown out wifhout any protectiou oflaw. 5. Leariied counsel for the respondenfe No. 4 to 8 further reUes on para 53 of fhe decision in fhe case of Secretaiy, Stete of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi (3) and ot&ers {(2006) 4 SCC 1}, in which it is held as under:- "53 ............ The question of regidarizaft'on. of fhe services of such empJoyees may have to be considered on merits in the Ught of the prindples setfled by this Court in the oases aboverefered to and in the light of this jwigment. In fhat cxinlext, the Union of Indici, the State Govermnenls and their insfrumentdltties should (afce sieps to regulcaize as a one-time nwasure, ihe servioes of such irregulcuiy appointed, who have worhed for ten yectrs or nwre in duly sanctioned poste but rwt under oover of orders of the oauris or oftribunak and shauldfurfher ensure that regular recnutmjervts we undertaken to fiU fhose vmxcn.t sanctioned posfe that requfre to fce filled up, in cases where temporcay employees or dcaly wagers are berng rww employed. The pr<x«ssmus( be set in motion wtthin six nwnthsjroin this dctte. We afeo darify fhal regulcavxction, ifany dtready mcide, but not " sub judice, need rwt be reopened baaed on this judynenf, but there should be no furfher bypassing of the constitutional reqiarement and regularsing or making permanenl, those rwt duly appointed as per the constitutionaJ scheme' r'- 6. In view of the dictum laid down by the Supreine Court iu the above judgment and order, the petitk>nera are directed to cousider the cases -of fhe respondents No. 4 to 8 as pcr direction pf ttie Supreme Court, as stated above, as one time measure, m accordance wifh law. 7. The petition is accordingly aUowed. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge __.l*--