^^^^^^ c^ 2e^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QFJmMCATURE AT BILASPUR (GHHATTISGAmi) W.P._NQ,CL^%)/2006 PETITINOER (S) RESPONDENTS -y .y rj& '® ? "j^^^ ''i^-JaR-1.;"1 1. State of Chhattisgarh/ Through: The Soil Testing Officer Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2. Deputy Director / Department of Agriculture Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1. Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Laghu / Wetan Karmchari Sangh, Prantiya Saiigh Raipur (C.G.) Through : Manohar Meshram Soul Testing OfHcer Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Labour Court, Rajnandgaon /' Through : Presiding Officer Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLS 326/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS^ CERTIORARY ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ?U N0.6390 OF 2006 PETITIONERS State of Chhattisgarh & Another Versus RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Laghu Wetan Karmchari Sangh S Another (Writ Petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioners. None for the respondent No.1, despite service of notice. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 9th day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the award dated 26-10-2004 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, in Case No.7/10 Act/Ref./2004,wherein the Labour Court has directed the State to regularize the services ofthe employee - Prakash Patil prior to two years with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 21-11-2003. The petitioners/State also challenges the order dated 31-5-2006 by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of fhe Code ofdvil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected by the Labour Court. 3. The case ofthe employee before the Labour Court was that he v/as working on the post of Peon since 1-3-1988. However, when the sen/ices of the employee - Prakash Patil was not regularized he filed a claim case before the Labour Court. According to the petitioners/State, the award has been passed ex parte. 4. The Labour Court has come to the conctusion that the employee has worked for a period of more than 16 years on the vacant post. In spite of the said facf, the employee has not been reguiarized. ^-fc- \ Ij gj.s;.^,;-;^ g 6. 7. 2 Accordingly, fhe petitioners were directed to regularize the services of the employee prior to two years back w.e.f. 21-11-2003 with all consequential benefits. Thereagainst, the petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C for setting aside the ex parte award dated 26-10-2004, which has been rejected holding that in spite of service of notice,. the petitioners have not appeared before the Court. Thus, this petition. Shri Dubey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioners, submits that in this case, the employee was appointed as daily wager and thus, the employee is not entitled to any relief. The appointment was on daily wages basis, not in aGCordance with the consfitutional scheme of employment. Shri Dubey relies on the decisions of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. V. Anil Kumar Mishra & Others, Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Taffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Others . 1 have perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that the employee was appointed on daily wages basis, which has been heldas illegal, not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment by the Supreme Court (See: Secrefa/y, Sfate of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others). It is also not the case of the respondents-employeesthat theywere appointed in accordance with the provisions of law. The Labour Court has directed regularization of the employee— Prakash Patil on the ground that he has been working since 1-3-1988, indisputably on daily wages basis. Thus, he has become ^ ' (2005) 5 SCC 122 2 (2010)63cc 773 3(2006)4SCC1 9. Arun Govvri entitled to be regularized. The Court below has not assigned any other reasohs particularly in view of the fact that the law is well settled on the point that appointment of a person on dailywages basis is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment and, as such, the same was illegal. The illegal appointment cannot be regularized even if a daily wager has working fora long period. Be that as it may, it is a trite law that an illegal appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, as the same is not in accordance with law and was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Othefs , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others and Sfafe of Punjab and Ofhers v. Surjit Singh and Others7). In the result, the impugned order dated 26-10-2004 (Annexure - P/1) is liable to be and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ~— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri 4 (2006) 4 SCC 1 5 (2007) 1 SCC 408 6(2008) 10SCC1 7 (2009) 9 SCC 514