II :L'^!''&i^:^i^;^':^iE^S'^s^ ^ ds?Q;»^e; :-^-» ;. .^f^ 1. 2. 3. ffiFORE Tffi HCW'BLE tNWICOURT OFCHATnSWUW AT BltASPUR. Steel Authorify of India Ltd Throigh: Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhital DistDurg (CG) Versus MemberJudge Industriat Court A/16.KrishnaSactan Shanker Nagar Raipur. (CG) Presiding Offteer Labour Court Durg. (CG) iri Kundan, . S/o Shri t^iria, ^A-<.^'.§x-BSPNMREmplt^®' FV.^'K^^.No.SOD. Sedor'9 l^ v.^y'/W&a\. Ost: Durg (CG) t ^^''^:.y p^^ (<3??>'^-'' WRTT WPNOj3/^^l o^ aore, PETTTIONER RESPONDENTS rermoN UNTCR ARTICLE 226027 OF CONSTrrUTION OF INUA FOR ISSUE OF WfUT OF MANDAMUS CERTITCTtY OR ORDER OR DIRECTION OF UKE NATURE. Ufci ^Ffi-— '2- *(-'' o HiQU_C.OURT OF CyUAmSSABHA' S1NGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTR!. J. WRST PETiTi Authority of !ndia Ltd., Shrough Managing Director, Shiiai Steei Plant, Bhilai ll»«,,., versus Member Judge, Industnai Court and others a> l,/ Postfor /5-12-2006 Sd/'- Satish K. AgiTifaotri Judge Petitjonei ResBondents IT PETST E t ^a 3 3 U versus SO.S9 01 Stee! Authority of india Ltd., through Managing Director, Bhiiai Steel Piant, Bhiiai Member Judge, Industriai Court and others ^<?Af Mr. N.K.Vyas, counsel for the pstitioner. Mr. Anoop Majumdar, counsei for respondent No. 01 •-^ (Passed on ll> Day of December, 2006) 3y this petition filsd under Articles 226/227 of ths Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the ordsr dated 10-7-2002 (Annsxure P-1) passed by the Industria! Court, Bench at Raipur and ths ordsr dated 28-11-1996 (Annexurs P-2) passed by ths Labour Court, r^; i ?-' ^Ui's^. 2. Respondent No.3 fllsd an apptication before the Labour Court on 24-8-1981 (Annexure P-3) claiming reappointment and back wagss pieadina mainiy that he v/as enrolied as Casua! Mazdoor in Blooming and Biilet Msil, Bhilai Stsei Plant, Bhiias m the year 1974. i-ie was absorbed as N.M.R. (Nomina! Muster Roii') Mazdoor in Pov/er Piant with efr'ect from 24-7-1978 and continusd upto 7-3-1980. According to the worker, i.e., respondent No.3, he was retrenched by the petstioner on 7-3-1980 due to closure ofv«'ork. Juniors to him in the N.M.R. have bsen either taken in reguiar sen/ice or are working as N.M.R. worksr in Power Piant and other departments of Bhilai Stee! Piant. 3. The petitsoner fiied a written statement before the Labour Court dated 30-4-1982 (Annexure P-4) dsnying the case of rsspondent No.3. The Labour Court, vide its order dated 21-8-1982 (Annexure P- 5), rejected the application of respondent No.3 dated 24-8-1981 (Annexurs P-3) treating as barred by limitation. Rsspondent No.3 fiisd a review appiication dated 2-9-1982 (Annsxure P-6) for review of the order dsted 21-8-1982, v/hlch was aiso rejected by the Labour Court, vide its order -dated 18-10-1982 (Annexure P-7). 4. Being assrisvsdi respondent No.3 fiied an appeal before ths Industria! Court, Indore, chaiienging the order dated 21-8-1982 (Annsxure P-5) and the order dated 18-10-1932 (Annexure P-7). The !ndustriai Court, indore, vide its order dated 21-3-1985 (Annexure P-8), rsjected the appeal againstthe order dsted 21-8-1982 (Annexure P-5), and againsi the order dated 18-10-1982 (Annexure P-7), ths appeal was partly ailowed and the matter was remandsd back to the Labour Court for a fresh declsion on the revisw appllcation of respondent No.3 dated 2-9-1982 (Annexure P-6). 5. During Labour Court, respoi 1991 (Annexure P-9) idency of the review application before the it No.3 filed another appiication dated 15-4- fors the Labour Court claiming rsappointmeni gs..: w as N.M.R. worker. The petitioner submitted a v/ritten statement dated 10-7-1991 (Annexure P-10) denying the case of respondent No.3. The Labour Couri:, vide Its impugned order dated 28-11- 1996 (Annexure P-2), ailowed the appiicatlon of respondsnt No.3 dated 15-4-1991 (Annexure P-9) and directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.3 as N.M.R. worker. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an appea! before the Industria! Court, Bench at Raipur / on 27-12-1996 (Annexur®P-11). The Industrial Court, Bench at Raipur aSSowed the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 31-1-2000 (Annexure P-12) with an observation that the petitioner should consider ths case of respondent No.3 sympatheticaily for re-employment. in the meantime, the Labour Court refsrred the matter to a Division Bench of the Industrial Court, Indore for decision on a question of iaw with regard to the review application pending before the Labour Court. The Dlvision Bench ofthe Industria! Court, Indors.vide its order dated 10-3-2000 (Annexure P-13), decided the reference and directed the Labour Court to decide the review applicaiion as per earlier order of the industriai Court, Indore dated 21-3-1885 (Annexure P-8), in accordancs with iaw. 9. Against the order dated 31-1-2000 (Annexure P-12) passed by ths Industria! Court, Bench at Raipur, respondent No.3 filed a review appiicat'on. The industrial Court, Bench at Raipur ailowed the rsview appiication of respondent No.3 by order dated 5-1-2C02 (Annexure P-14) obsen/ing that the order dated 31-1-2000 (Annexure P-12) passed in the appea! filed by the petitioner on 27-12-1996 (Annexure P-11) standsstayed/rejected for the time belng, and fixed the said appeai of the petitioner for re-hearing. 10. After re-hearing, the Industria! Court.Bench at Ralpur, by the impugned order dated 10-7-2002 (Annexure P-1), rejected the said appea! of the petltioner, which was earlier filed on 27-12-1996 Tor quashing the impugned order dated 28-11-1996 (Annexure P-2). 11. Having regard to the admitted facts of the case that rsspondent No.3 was employed as daiiy rated worker on Nomina! Muster Ro!i and the Labour Court has not recorded a clesr findlng that rsspondent No.3 had worked for more than 240 days, respondent No.3 has no right to the post as the appointment of respondent No.3 was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of empioyment or under any rules framed under proviso to Articte 309 of Sh®Constitution of tndia inviting appllcations from ali t'ne elisibie candidates. 12. A Constitution Bench of the Suprsme Court has settied the legal position with regard to the right of t'ne daiiy wager, acf hoc, casual, temporary smployees not appointed in accordance with the constitutiona! scheme of empEoyment and not in acco'dance wifh taw. 13. in the case of Secretary, Stata oi Kamateka and others vs. umadffi/i(3) ancfothers , the Supreme Court observed as under:- ss ^VS'Kais^ k,,.,.!».iia^%, "45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casua!, be regularised or made permanent, ths couris are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerabie iength of time. It Is not as if the psrson who accepts an engagement either temporary or casuai in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. h'e accspts ths empioyment with open eyes. It may be Srue that he is not in a positlon to bargain - not at arm's length - since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eks out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it wouid not be appropriate to jettison the constitutlonal scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporariiy or casuaiiy got smpioyed shoutd be directsd to be continusd permanently. 8y doinc so, it v»i!l be creating another mode of public appolntment which is not permissible." "47. When a person enters a Sempora-j? employment or gets engagement as a contractuai or casuai worker and- the sngagement is not based on a proper seiection as recognised by the reievant ruies or procedure, 'ne is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporar/, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of iegitimate expectation for being confirmed In the post when an appointment to ths post cou'.d be made oniy by foilowing a propsr procedurs for seiection and in cases concerned, in consultation v/sth ths Public Service Commission." 14. Therefors, the reliance piaced by learned counsei appearing for respondent No.3 on the decision in the case of Central lank oflndia vs. S. Satyam and others'', wherein the Supreme Court has held that a!i cases of retrenchment shall be governed under the provlsions of Section 25H of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, may not be appiicabie to ths facts of the present case. 15. The Supreme Court, in the case of Mineral Exploration Corpn. £mp)oyees'Union vs. Mlnera! Explorati'Cfn Corpn. Ud. another', 'nas directed the Industrial Tribunals to decide the ciaim of the workmen strictiy in accordance with and ir> compiiance with the dlrectlons given in the judgment by the Constitution Bench in ths case of Secretary, -of Kamstaka and others vs. Umadevi (3) ancf others (Supra). In view of aforementioned reasons, !t is not necessary to decide the question of applicabllity of principle of res judlcata in the present case. 16 lil, In the rssult, in viev/ of the foregoing, this petition is aliov/ed. The i'mpugned orders dated 10-7-2002 (Annsxure P-1) issed by the Industria! Court, Bench at Raipur and dated 28-11-1996 (Annexure P-2] passed by the Labour Court, Durg are quashed. No order s.s to costs. Sd.''- Satish K. Agmiiom Judge 1 $2006} 4 SCC 1 2 1996(!!)LU820 3 (2006) 6 SCC 310