Case: UNION OF INDIA Vs. ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS

following the due process of law.J. The Union of India is directed that all the causal labourers who receive injuries, while discharging the duties in harsh conditions in border areas, should be treated in Military Hospitals free-of-cost. The Union of India is also directed that the casual labourers from the camping site of construction should be transported in buses and not in open trucks.”8. It is against this order, the appellant (Union of India) have felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.9. So, the short question, which arises for consideration, is whether the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) was justified in allowing the respondents’ writ petition and was justified in issuing the directions after framing a Scheme itself in the nature of mandamus against the appellant-UOI to frame a scheme for providing specific kinds of facilities/benefits to the casual workers working in BRO in the State of Uttarakhand in construction activities.10. Heard Mr. Ajit K. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the respondents.11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents.12. It may not be necessary to elaborately deal with the issues arising in the case because we are of the view that the issue involved in this appeal is no longer res integra and settled by the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Vartak Labour Union (2) [(2014) 4 SCC 200].13. That was also a case where the Union of workers namely “Vartak Labour Union” had claimed a relief of regularization of the services of the casual workers who were working in BRO for a considerable period in construction activities undertaken by BRO in the State of Assam. The Union of workers, therefore, filed a writ petition against the Union of India in the Gauhati High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Union of India to regularize the services of all such casual workers. The Union of India felt aggrieved and filed special leave to appeal in this Court against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Gauhati High Court with the following observations:“17. We are of the opinion that the respondent Union’s claim for regularisation of its members merely because they have been working for the BRO for a considerable period of time cannot be granted in light of several decisions of this Court, wherein it has been consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3); Official Liquidator v. Dayanand; State of Karnataka v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak; Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal; Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar and Rameshwar Dayal v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.]22. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where members of the respondent Union have been employed in terms of the Regulations and have been consistently engaged in service for the past thirty to forty years, of course with short breaks, we feel, the Union of India would consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme for absorption and regularisation of the services of the casual workers engaged by the BRO for execution of its ongoing projects. 23. In the final analysis, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders are set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.”14. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India (supra) when we examine the facts of the case at hand, we find that the facts of the case at hand and the one which were subject matter in the case of Union of India (supra) are identical in all respects except that name of the Trade Union of workers and place of working in both the cases are different, which is hardly of any significance.15. The High Court, in our view, should have, therefore, examined the case in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India (supra) rather than to evolve its own separate scheme.16. The High Court failed to see that it is not the function of the Courts to frame any Scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the Government to do it.17. All that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct the Government to consider for framing an appropriate Scheme having regard to the facts and circumstances of any case which this Court did in the case of Union of India(supra) but not beyond it. It is only in an exceptional case where the Court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so but not otherwise.18. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Union of India has now framed a welfare scheme for all such casual workers. The salient features of the welfare scheme and the benefits which are being extended to all such casual workers are set out in Para 14 (i) to (xii) of the petition. (see page M to R of SLP paper book)19. Learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on a scheme(Annexure R-2) contended that it is this scheme which should have been implemented. We find no merit in this submission. This issue, we find, was already considered in the case of Union of India (supra) and rejected.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents.12. It may not be necessary to elaborately deal with the issues arising in the case because we are of the view that the issue involved in this appeal is no longer res integra and settled by the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Vartak Labour Union (2) [(2014) 4 SCC 200].13. That was also a case where the Union of workers namelyhad claimed a relief of regularization of the services of the casual workers who were working in BRO for a considerable period in construction activities undertaken by BRO in the State of Assam. The Union of workers, therefore, filed a writ petition against the Union of India in the Gauhati High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Union of India to regularize the services of all such casual workers. The Union of India felt aggrieved and filed special leave to appeal in this Court against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court.Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India (supra) when we examine the facts of the case at hand, we find that the facts of the case at hand and the one which were subject matter in the case of Union of India (supra) are identical in all respects except that name of the Trade Union of workers and place of working in both the cases are different, which is hardly of any significance.15. The High Court, in our view, should have, therefore, examined the case in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India (supra) rather than to evolve its own separate scheme.16. The High Court failed to see that it is not the function of the Courts to frame any Scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the Government to do it.17. All that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct the Government to consider for framing an appropriate Scheme having regard to the facts and circumstances of any case which this Court did in the case of Union of India(supra) but not beyond it. It is only in an exceptional case where the Court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so but not otherwise.18. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Union of India has now framed a welfare scheme for all such casual workers. The salient features of the welfare scheme and the benefits which are being extended to all such casual workers are set out in Para 14 (i) to (xii) of the petition. (see page M to R of SLP paper book)19. Learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on a scheme(Annexure R-2) contended that it is this scheme which should have been implemented. We find no merit in this submission. This issue, we find, was already considered in the case of Union of India (supra) and rejected.