HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII, Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of Case W.P. No. 990 (M/S) year 2001 (Old No. 14946 of 1998) State of U.P. and others Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another. Approved for reporting. Not approved for reporting Date of decision 9.10.2003. Initials of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 990(M/s)2001[14946 of 1998] (1) State of U.P. (2) Director, State Engineer’s Academy Kalagarh, Pauri Garhwal. (3) Deputy Director, State Engineer’s Academy, Kalagarh, Pauri Garhwal. …..…Petitioners Vs. (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P Dehradun (2) Mangal Singh S/o Udai Singh Village- Meerapur North P.O- Kalluwala Disst. Bijnor. U.P …... Respondents Chief standing counsel for the petitioner Dated:9-10-2003 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon J. By the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated on 20-6-97. Brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid writ petition are that the respondent No.2 was a work charged employee and by virtue of the order passed by the state of U.P dated 7.2.97 daily wage employees were entitled to be regularised, who has completed 240 days of work on or before 1.1.1993 and further who were in continuous service even on the date of the order i.e 7.2-97. It was also mentioned that for daily wage employees seniority as well as suitability will be the criteria for putting them under work charged employment. In order to decide the suitability and seniority a Committee of superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, and three assistant engineer has to be constituted on the chairmanship of superintending engineer in each circle. It was also stated that the orders dated on 7-2-97 and 24-2-97 were issued in compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court in case of Raj Narain Prasad Vs. State of U.P Civil Misc. writ petition No. 140/89 in which on 18-1-96 the following orders was passed are quoted below:- “That takes us to the question regarding the regularization of master roll employees. Because they can only stand next to work charge employees we would recommend that they could be absorbed as work charge employees to the extent or at a certain percentage of posts falling vacant at the latter being regularized under the scheme. That would satisfy a certain percentage of the category of daily wage /master roll employees also. We would like the State to undertake somehow of the cadre strength by March this year and thereafter in December every year so that budgetary support could be provided for in the next financial year for the added strength to the cadre. With these observations and recommendation we approve the scheme but we would once again impress upon the State that the spirit of our observations in piara Singh’s case should be observed. The petitioners shall stand disposed of accordingly. New Delhi (January 18,1996) The State of U.P has challenged the award on the ground that the respondent No.2 are daily wage employees has no right/lien to the post. It was also stated that the respondent No-2 was not working in the organization as class IV employees on 1-1-93. The presiding officer labour court has passed the order that the termination of the respondent No. 2 from 13-September 1998 was wholly illegal and the direction was also made for restatement with back wages of 50%. The presiding officer has also directed that the employee concerned may be taken in the category of work charge employee. The findings of the Prescribed Authority are quoted below:- Lsok;kstdksa )kjk izLrqr oknh Jfed ds dk;Zfnolksa ds fooj.k ls izdV gksrk gS fd mlus o’kZ 1983 esa Qjojh ls fnlEcj ekg rd 252 fnu] o’kZ 1984 esa twu&flrEcj eghuksa dks NksM+dj “ks’k eghuksa esa 188 fnu] 1985 esa 57 fnu o 1986 esa 31 fnu dke fd;k rFkk o’kZ 1988 esa fdlh Hkh ekg esa dke ugha fd;kA lsok;kstdksa dks dFku gS fd pwWfd Jfed flrEcj 88 esa dk;Zjr gh ugh Fkk vr% 30&9&88 dks dksbZ dkt vkQ ,sD”k gh iSnk u gksus ds dkj.k lanHkfn”k fof/k fud`’V gSA ;g rks Li’V gh gS fd oknh Jfed 1983 ls lsok;kstdks ds fu;kstu esa FkkA vr% 1984 ls vkxs ds o’kksZa esa lHkh ekgksa esa mldh mifLFkfr ntZ u gksus esa mldk dksbZ nks’k ugh gS D;ksafd jftLVj rks lsok;kstdks dh gh lqj{kk esa jgrs gSaA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn us jfoUnz iky flag cuke LVsV cSad ;w0ih0 o vU; esaA uoEcj 93 ds fu.kZ; ,Q0 ,y vkj 1994 okY;we 69 i`’V 122 izLrj ¼9½ esa ;g dgk gS fd ;fn Jfed fdlh Hkh o’kZ 240 fnu ls vf/kd dke dj ysrk gS rks m0iz0 vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6&,u es fn;s laj{.k dk vf/kdkjh gks tkrk gSA esjk /;ku m0iz0 “kklu ds flapkbZ foHkkx )kjk tkjh “kkluns”k la0 402@dk0iz0v0iz0@Mh&2fnukad 24&2&97 dh vkSj vkdf’kZr fd;k x;k ftlesa ;g funsZ”k fn;s x;s gS fd o’kZ 1985 ls iwoZ o 1986 ls 1990 dh vof/k esa dk;Zjr dh tk;saA bl “kklukns”k ds rgr Hkh oknh Jfed ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA vr% eSa vfHkfu.kZ; nsrk gqW fd lsok;kstdks )kjk vius Jfed eaxy flag] nSfud osru Hkksxh pkSdhnkj dh lsok;sa fn030&9&98 ls Nvuh )kjk lekIr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr o voS/kkfud gS vkSj ;g funsZ”k nsrk gqW fd mls lsok esa iquZLFkkfir fd;k tk;sa o fiNyh vof/k dk 50 izfr”kr osru fn;k tk;s o mijksDr izLrj esa mfYyf[kr “kklukns”k ds vuqlkj Jfed dks odZpktZ vf/k’Bku esa fy;k tk;saA A perusal of the order shows that the respondent No.2 has completed more than 240 days. The presiding officer has also come to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 has worked for more than 240 days and therefore the present dispute is fully covered under the U.P Industrial dispute Act and the respondent No.2 was entitled for the benefit of having worked for more than 240 days. He is liable to be absorbed in the employee of work charged category. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the presiding officer. So as to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The observations of the Apex Court in Raj Narain Prasad and others Vs. The State of U.P and others writ petition No. 140/89 are as under:- “That takes us to the question regarding the regularization of muster roll employees. Because they can only stand next to work charged employees. we would recommend that they could be absorbed as work charge employee to the extent or at a certain percentage of posts falling vacant at the latter being regularized under the scheme. That would satisfy a certain percentage of the category of daily wage/muster roll employees also. We would like the State to undertake somehow of the cadre strength by March this year and thereafter in December every year so that budgetary support could be provided for in the next financial year for the added strength to the cadre. With these observations and recommendations we approve the scheme but we would once again impress upon the State that the spirit of our observations in Piara Singh’s case should be observed. The petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly.” There is also on the record the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 on paragraph No. 8, 9,10 which reads as under.- Paragraph-8 “That the chief Engineer (Uttarakhand), Dehradun (Uttaranchal) had Chief Engineer/Director who is also submitted to work as Director of Academy, Kalagarh), instructed the authorities concerned vide their letter No.435/mu.Ac.(O.Kha) at 30- 12-2000-N. 5917/mu.As dated 15-1-2001 to regularize/aboisbe the muster roll employees in work charge establishment as per judgment of Hon.Supreme Court and C.O.Bo.691dated 7-2-97 aforesaid letter are enclosed as annexure no. 5 and to the supplementary aforesaid. Paragraph-9 “That it is submitted the authorities concerned have assured the deponents on 24-1-2001 to issue the becessary order regarding regularization/ as operation in the work charge establishment very shortly. The letter or deponent addressed to Chief Engineer / Director in appreciation of the geusturo is enclosed as annexure no. 7 to the supplementary aforesaid affidavit. Paragraph-10 “That to create condusive atmosphere and goodwill have decided fully and finally to withdraw the claim of Back- wages/Writ expenses, if the Director or Deputy Director State Engineering Academy Kalagarh. Pauri Garhwal do the best of regularization of work charge Employees and Muster roll Labour Employee in the Project above.” Standing counsel has also informed that in view of the Award passed by the presiding office labour court, employee concern is regularly working. Further it made clear that if the respondent No.2 has received any benefits arising out of the order of Presiding officer, the same will not come in his way and he will be entitled to have the fruits of the order passed by the labour court. Further in view of the statement made aforesaid in paragraph 9 and 10 of the Counter Affidavit. The respondent No.2 will not be entitled to claim further any benefits with regard to the back wages. In view of the aforesaid facts the authorities concern having already complied the order passed by the presiding officer labour court and has also paid back wages, and find no infirmity in the order passed by the Presiding officer Labour Court. Consequently no interference is made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order is to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dated:-9-10-2003 Mohit