‘ ( " c v ‘ Q é M m r ” ‘ 7 7 ! ‘ ‘ Q o r - 3 N o . § $ 6 o z o . 2 g } é 7 ) o a = $ W § L E § E a S P E c m i E m S C H E D U L E e c m a m e s w 1 m I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F J U D I C A T U R E A T B I L A S P U R I C H H A T T I S G A R I - I l W R I T P E T I y O N ( L y N o . s g é k g [ 2 0 1 0 P E T I T I O N E R S : / 1 . S t a t e o f C h h a t t i s g a r h , / t h r o u g h t h e S e c r e t a r y , D e p a r t m e n t o f W a t e r ’ R e s o u r c e s , D . K ‘ S . B h a w a n , M a n t r a l a y a , R a i p u r ( C G . ) ( T h e p e t i t i o n e r n o . 1 w a s n o t a p a r t y b e f o r e t h e l e a r n e d L a b o u r C o u r t b u t h a s b e e n i m p l e a d e d a s p e t i t i o n e r n o . 1 i n t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n a s t h e p r o p e r c o u r s e i s t o i m p l e a d t h e S t a t e G o v e r n m e n t t h r o u g h t h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e c o n c e r n e d d e p a r t m e n t ) 2 . D e p a r t m e n t o f W a t e r R e s o u r c e s , t h r o u g h t h e S u b D i v i s i o n a l O f f i c e r , H a s d e o B a y i T a t N a h a r , D i v i s i o n N o . 4 , S e o n i , D i s t r i c t J a n j g i r C h a m p a ( C G . ) { C o r r e c t a d d r e s s i s H a s d e o B a y i T a t N a h a r , S u b D i v i s i o n N o . 4 , S e o n i , D i s t r i c t J a n j g i r C h a m p a ( C G ‘ ) a s t h e a b o v e a d d r e s s h a s w r o n g l y b e e n m e n t i o n e d i n t h e a w a r d ) V E R S U S : / R a m b h a r o s R a t h o r e , S / o J e e t r a m R a t h o r e , a g e d a b o u t 4 7 y e a r s , F o r m e r C h o w k i d a r , R E S P O N D E N T A d d r e s s v i l l a g e P o s t S e o n i , T a h . C h a m p a , D i s t r i c t J a n j g i r C h a p a ( C G . ) v v : n w H m W R I T P E T I T I O N U N D E R A R T I C L E 2 2 6 ( 2 2 7 O F T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N O F I N D I A z AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH- AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. 3034 of2009 PETITIONERS : State ofChhattisgarh & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENT : Dhaniram. ALONGWITH Writ Petition (L) No. 5246 of 2010, Writ Petition (L) No. 5965 of 2010, Writ Petition (L) No. 5964 of 2010, Writ Petition (L) No. 5963 of 2010, Writ Petition (L) No. 5377 of 2010, Writ Petition (L) No. 5378 of 2010, Writ Petition (L) No. 5376 of2010 Post for pronouncement ofiudgment& Order on^.1nrdav ofFebmary, 2011. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '-r^ ,.4»*d HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. 3034 of 2009 PETITIONERS : State of Chhattisgarh & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENT : Dhaniram. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5246 of2010 PETITIONERS : State ofChhattisgarh &Another. VERSUS RESPONDENT : Brij Nandan Chandra. WRJT PETITION (L) No. 5965 of2010 PETITIONERS : State of Chhattisgarh & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENT : Bodhiram Yadav. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5964 of 2010 PETITIONERS : State ofChhattisgarh & Another. VERSUS RESPQNDENT : Rambharos Rathore. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5963 of2010 PETITIONERS :StateofChhattisgarh&Another. VERSUS RESPQNDENT : Shiv Prasad Sarthi. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5377 of 2010 PETITIONERS : State ofChhattisgarh &Another. VERSUS RESPONDENT : Bachharam Karsh. ^\ WRIT PETITION (U No. 5378 of2010 PETITIONERS : State ofChhattisgarh & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENT : Radhelal Sahu. ^G WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5376 of 2010 PETITIONERS : State ofChhattisgarh &Another. VERSUS RESPONDENT : Gajalal Bareth. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QFiNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/petitioners. Shri S.P.Kale, Advo.cate for the respondent. (Delivered on 4.^day of Febmary, 2011) V- 1. All the above writ petitions vzz. Writ petition (L) No. 3034 of 2009, Writ petition (L) No. 5246 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5965 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5964 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5963 of 2010, involve common facts and question oflaw, thus, they are being disposed ofby this common order. 2. Writ petition (L) No. 5377 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5378 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5376 of 2010 were heard and reserved for orders on 27.01.2011, which also involve common facts and question of law, thus, they are also being disposed ofby this order itself. 3. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner/State is as under: WRIT PETITION (L) No. 3034 of2009 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure P/l)passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 13/IDA/2005(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the .H^^ A\ State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case ofthe respondent before the Labour Court was that he was working on daily wages basis since 14.12.1979 as Bull Attendant. It was further claimed by the respondent that on 10.06.1987, due to health problem, he went on medical leave on 11.6.1987. The respondent joined his duty vide order dated 08.07.1997 as Bull Attendant at Veterinary Hospital, Mungeli. Thereafter, the State/petitioner terminated his services by order dated 14.01.2000 w.e./ 18.01.2000. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court. The petitioncr submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on 14.12.1979 but in fact, he was appointed on 04.05.1984. It was further stated in the reply that since the respondent absented without any information since 10.06.1987 andfurther,that he was appointed on daily wages basis at the Collector's rate, there was no occasion for granting medical leave or otherwise. However, on 23.05.1997, on humanitarian ground, the petitioner department had re-appointed him. On 14.01.2000, seven other persons were removed who were appointed afiter 31.12.1988 on daily wages basis, on the basis of instructions of the State Government. The respondent was mformed regarding the reason ofhis termination. The petitioner also stated before the Labour Court that it is ready to given compensation but granting re-appointment to the respondent may not be possible for it. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short fthe Act, 1947 )} was not complied 4^ with and thus, the retrenchment ofthe respondentwas found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service without back-wages. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5246 of2010 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 32/IDA/2009(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case ofthe respondent before the Labour Court was that he worked in the petitioner's department from 01.01.1991 to 30.06.1996 on the post ofChowkidar on daily wages basis. Me was removed by oral order without any reason and without following the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, 1947 and further, he was not paid any compensation for his retrenchment. The petitioner submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on any regular post but was appointed on daily wages basis. The appointments made after 31.12.1988 were retrenched and engagement ofthe respondent as daily wager^ was discontinued. It was further stated by the petitioner that in any calendar year or in the preceding year, the respondent had not worked for a period of 240 days. Thus/the respondent was not entitled for any compensation for his retrenchment. It was also contended that the claim of the respondent was belated by 14 years, thus., the claim ofthe respondent deserves to be rejected. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act., 1947 was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment of the respondent ^4- •:-•^ ,.^"" t^.^- ^,f^^ t-\ ti*e^j \. '%^/ was found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in ser^ice without back-wages. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5965 of2010 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 33/IDA/2009(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case ofthe respondent before the Labour Court wasthat he worked in the petitioner's department from 01.01.1989 to 30.06.1996 on the post of Helper on daily wages basis. He was removed by oral order without any reason and without following the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 and further., he was not paid any compensation for his retrenchment. The petitioner submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on any regular post but was appointed on daily wages basis. The appointments made after 31.12.1988 were retrenched and engagement of the respondent as daily wager, was discontinued. It was further stated by the petitioner that in any calendar year or in the preceding year, therespondent had not worked for a period of 240 days. Thus, the respondent was not entitled for any compensation for his retrenchment. It was also contended that the claim of the respondent was belated by 14 years, thus, the claim of the respondent deserves to be rejected. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 25-F oftheAct, 1947 was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment of the respondent ^\ m;^^_ ': "•"-^^ [] \^' was found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service without back-wages. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5964 of2010 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 30/IDA/2009(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case of the respondent before the Labour Court was that he worked in the petitioner's department from 01.08.1989 to 30.06.1996 on the post ofChowkidar on daily wages basis. He was removed by oral order without any reason and without following the provisions ofsection 25-F oftheAct, 1947 and further, he was not paid any compensation for his retrenchment. Thepetitioner submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on any regular post but was appointed on daily wages basis. The appointments made after 31.12.1988 were retrenched and engagement ofthe respondent as daily wager, was discontinued. It was further stated by the petitioner that in any calendar year or in the preceding year, the respondent had not worked for a period of 240 days. Thus, the respondent was not entitled for any compensation for his retrenchment. It was also contended that the claim ofthe respondent was belated by 14 years, thus, the claim of the respondent deserves to be rejected. Afiter hearing the parties, theLabour Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment of the respondent ^:: was found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service without back-wages. WRIT PETITION (L} No. 5963 of2010 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 28/IDA/2009(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case ofthe respondent before the Labour Court was that he worked in the petitioner's department from 01.05.1989 to 30.06.1996 on the post ofMason, Grade II on daily wages basis. He was removed by oral order without any reason and without following the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, 1947 and further, he was not paid any compensation for his retrenchment. The petitioner submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on any regular post but was appointed on daily wages basis. The appointments made after 31.12.1988 were retrenched and engagement of the respondent as daily wager, was discontinued.It was furtherstated by the petitioner that in any calendar year or in the preceding year, the respondent had not worked for a period of 240 days. Thus, the respondent was not entitled for any compensation for his retrenchment. It was also contended that the claim of the respondent was belated by 14 years, thus, the claim ofthe respondent deser^es to be rejected. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions ofsection25-F ofthe Act, 1947 was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment of the respondent ^^M 1,M 1^'^: 8 was found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service without back-wages. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5377 of2010 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court., Bilaspur in Case No. 39/IDA/2009(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case of the respondent before the Labour Court was that he worked in the petitioner's department from 01.07.1989 to 30.06.1996 on the post ofSite Helper on daily wages basis. He was removed by oral order without any reason and without following the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 and further, he was not paid anycompensation for his retrenchment. The petitioner submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on any regular post but was appointed on daily wages basis. The appointments made after 31.12.1988 were retrenched and engagement ofthe respondent as daily wager., was discontinued. It was further stated by the petitioner that in any calendar year or in the preceding year/the respondent had not worked for a period of 240 days. Thus, the respondent was not entitled for any compensation for his retrenchment. It was also contended that the claim ofthe respondent was belated by 14 years, thus, the claim of the respondent deserves to be rejected. After hearing the parties., the Labour Court has come to the conclusionthat the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment ofthe respondent ^' ••1 was found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service without back-wages. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5378 of2010 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 37/IDA/2009(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case of the respondent before the Labour Court was that he worked in the petitioner's department from 01.01.1990 to 30.06.1996 on the post of Site Helper/Chowkidar on daily wages basis. He was removed by oral order without any reason and without following the provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 and further, he was not paid any compensation for his retrenchment. The petitioner submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on any regular post but was appointed on daily wages basis. The appointments made after 31.12.1988 wereretrenched and engagement ofthe respondent as daily wager, was discontinued.It was further stated by the petitioner that in any calendar year or in the preceding year, the respondent had not worked for a period of 240 days. Thus, the respondent was not entitled for any compensation for his retrenchment. It was also contended that the claim of the respondent was belated by 14 years, thus, the claim of the respondent deserves to be rejected. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment of the respondent T^l /Y'^: ti '•«&.^ 'm ^-"' 10 was found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in ser^ice without back-wages. WRIT PETITION (L) No. 5376 of2010 Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 36/IDA/2009(Ref). wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to reinstate the respondent in service without back wages. The case of the respondent before the Labour Court was that he worked inthe petitioner's department from 01.07.1989 to 30.06.1996 on the post ofSite Helper on daily wages basis. He was removed by oral order without any reason and without following the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 and further, he was not paid any compensation for his retrenchment. The petitioner submitted its reply stating that the respondent was not appointed on any regular post but was appointed on daily wages basis. The appointments made afiter 31.12.1988 were retrenched and engagement ofthe respondent as daily wager, was discontinued. It was further stated by the petitioner that in any calendar year or in the preceding year, the respondent had not worked for a period of 240 days. Thus, the respondent was not entitled for any compensation for his retrenchment.It was also contended that the claim ofthe respondent was belated by 14 years, thus, the claim of the respondent deserves to be rejected. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the provisions ofsection 25-F ofthe Act, 1947 was not complied with and thus, the retrenchment of the respondent ^^fc'^ 11 was found illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service withoutback-wages. Shri Y.S.Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing with Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/petitioners would submit that in all the above cases, the respondents wcre appointed as dailywagers and thus, the respondents are not entitled to any relief as granting reinstatement on account of non- compliance of the provisions of section25-F of the Act, 1947 amounts to regularizing the services of the respondents. Their appointment was on daily wages basis, not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. Shri Thakur would next contend that the application before the Labour Court was filed after inordinate delay ofabout 14 years. He would rely on a decision of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra & Others J, Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Taffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Others2. On the other hand, Shri Kale, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the provisions ofthe Act, 1947 is a separate code which provides that in case ofan employee, ifhe has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year, compliance of section 25-F of the Act, 1947 by granting retrenchment allowance is mandatory. In the case on hand, since no compensation was paid, thus, the award passed by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference. Even othenvise, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement without backwages. He (2005) 5 SCC 122 2 (2010) 6 SCC 773 .;.^--^ %0 12 relies on a decision oftheSupreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation3. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearmg for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that the respondents were appointed on daily wages basis which has been held as illegal, not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment by the Supreme Court (See: Secretary, State ofKarnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others ). li is not the case of the respondents- employees that they were appointed in accordance with the provisions oflaw.Now the question for consideration is that ifan employee has worked for 240 days in the preceding year and the employee has been removed without payment of retrenchment allowance as provided under the provisions of section 25-F ofthe Act, 1947, whether reinstatement is anecessary consequence. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, while considering the identical facts, in Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad', held asunder: "5. We are unable to uphold the order of the High Court. There were nosanctioned posts in existence to which they could be said to have been appointed.The assignment was an ad hoc one which anticipatedly spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them the status of workmen on the analogy of the provisions of thelndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, importing the incidents of completion of 240 days9 work. The legal consequences that flow from work for that duration under the Industrial Disputes Act^ 1947, are entirely different fromwhat.by way of implication, is attributed to the present situation by way ofanalogy. The completion of 32010AIRSCW1357. 4 (2006) 4 SCC 1 T" 13 8. 240 days' work does not, under the law import the right to regularization. It merely imposes certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination ofthe service. It is not appropriate to import and apply that analogy,