Case: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Balasaheb Maruti Poojari &amp; Another

complaint to any superior officer of Mr. Deshpande when he told him not to come on duty. Not only that but the Respondent worker has also admitted that six years after 28/02/1985 for the first time, he approached conciliation officer and raised dispute by way of Reference, after nine years. In that also he had not specifically named Mr. Deshpande He has also admitted that he never resumed duty after termination on 28/02/1985. So, this very conduct viz. keeping mum and not taking any action for a long period of about 9 years and not ventilating the grievance clearly indicates that Respondent worker had at that time no intention to continue with the service and on the contrary he had an intention to abandon the service. Any worker who is interested in the job would not keep mum when he is simply asked by one officer that he should not join duty. He would definitely insist for some written order or would make grievance about the officer. However, no such thing has taken place in the instant case. This obviously shows that respondent worker must not be interested in the said job. He might have received some other job. Otherwise it is very difficult to believe that such person would keep mum for years together. So, the facts and circumstances of this case are in fact quite eloquent to establish the contention of the employer that Respondent worker abandoned the services and they never terminated his service. However, unfortunately, the learned Labour Judge did not properly consider all the above mentioned facts and circumstances and as a result of the same reached to a wrong conclusion that the employer has failed to prove the case of abandonment. With respect, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has also not dwelled on this point and has only accepted the finding recorded by the learned Labour Judge. So, in our considered view, Reference in question as well as writ petition filed by the worker are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.12. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that there is no sufficient material on record to reach to the conclusion that there was abandonment of service by the worker, still then, the question arises, whether in the facts and circumstances of this case it was obligatory on the part of the employer to comply with the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.13. Shri Bapat, learned Advocate for the Respondent worker strenuously argued before us that once it is proved that worker had worked for 240 days continuously then even though he is a casual worker it is necessary to comply with the provisions of Sec. 25F of the said Act. He has placed reliance on a case Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board V/s. Rajesh Kumar reported in (2003) 12 SCC 548. However, the facts of the said case and the facts of the case in had are quite different. In that case, the worker was regularly appointed and shown on the list of workers while in the instant case admittedly, at no point of time the Respondent worker has been appointed on a particular vacant post by the employer and it is only when work was available the services of Respondent worker were taken. So, the above cited case is of no use to the present respondent.14. An attempt was made on behalf of the Respondent worker to show that one Mr. Reddy who was working with him was subsequently absolved and made permanent. However, admittedly, the respondent has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in this behalf to show that though Reddys name was not in the list of workers appointed by the company he has been absolved in the company. The Company has produced letter dated 07/11/1989 at Exh-36, showing details of the grant of temporary status and regularisation scheme meant for the workers. From the said scheme it appears that if casual labourer are designated as temporary mazdoor they are not taken on permanent establishment unless they are selected during the regular selection process for grade D post. However, in the instant case there is absolutely no material on record to show that the Respondent worker had acquired the status of temporary worker. So, under such circumstances merely because Respondent worked continuously for 240 days, it can not be said that it was necessary for the employer to issue notice and follow the provisions under I.D. Act. In fact, in a case M.P. Housing Board and Anr. V/s. Manoj Shrivastava 2006 AIR SCW 1235 the Apex Court has observed:Where the employee was appointed as daily wager but not against a vacant post which was duly sanctioned by the statutory authority nor his appointment was made upon following the statutory law operating in the field, he can not be made permanent employee. A daily wager does not hold a post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. He does not derive any legal right in relation thereto. Further, only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularised in service."15. Similar view is taken by their Lordships of the Apex Court in a case Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro. Industrial Development Corporation V/s. S.C. Pande 2006 (1) CLR 1066.16. Thus, having regard to the above mentioned recent decisions of the Apex Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the present Appellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam was not under statutory obligation in this case to issue notice of termination to respondent worker and follow the procedure as laid down under section 25F of the I.D. Act. The present Respondent worker has in fact abandoned his service. He made no grievance about the alleged termination for a period of about 8-9 years and as such he is certainly not entitled for reinstatement.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]11. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case the Respondent worker was working as a casual labourer or mazdoor. According to him, on 28/02/1985Engineer one Mr. Deshpande told him that he should not come on duty. It is pertinent to note that the said worker has clearly admitted in histhat he never made any complaint to any superior officer of Mr. Deshpande when he told him not to come on duty. Not only that but the Respondent worker has also admitted that six years after 28/02/1985 for the first time, he approached conciliation officer and raised dispute by way of Reference, after nine years. In that also he had not specifically named Mr. Deshpande He has also admitted that he never resumed duty after termination on 28/02/1985. So, this very conduct viz. keeping mum and not taking any action for a long period of about 9 years and not ventilating the grievance clearly indicates that Respondent worker had at that time no intention to continue with the service and on the contrary he had an intention to abandon the service. Any worker who is interested in the job would not keep mum when he is simply asked by one officer that he should not join duty. He would definitely insist for some written order or would make grievance about the officer. However, no such thing has taken place in the instant case. This obviously shows that respondent worker must not be interested in the said job. He might have received some other job. Otherwise it is very difficult to believe that such person would keep mum for years together. So, the facts and circumstances of this case are in fact quite eloquent to establish the contention of the employer that Respondent worker abandoned the services and they never terminated his service. However, unfortunately, the learned Labour Judge did not properly consider all the above mentioned facts and circumstances and as a result of the same reached to a wrong conclusion that the employer has failed to prove the case of abandonment. With respect, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has also not dwelled on this point and has only accepted the finding recorded by the learned Labour Judge. So, in our considered view, Reference in question as well as writ petition filed by the worker are liable to be dismissed on this groundthe facts of the said case and the facts of the case in had are quite different. In that case, the worker was regularly appointed and shown on the list of workers while in the instant case admittedly, at no point of time the Respondent worker has been appointed on a particular vacant post by the employer and it is only when work was available the services of Respondent worker were taken. So, the above cited case is of no use to the present respondent.14. An attempt was made on behalf of the Respondent worker to show that one Mr. Reddy who was working with him was subsequently absolved and made permanent. However, admittedly, the respondent has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in this behalf to show that though Reddys name was not in the list of workers appointed by the company he has been absolved in the company. The Company has produced letter dated 07/11/1989 atshowing details of the grant of temporary status and regularisation scheme meant for the workers. From the said scheme it appears that if casual labourer are designated as temporary mazdoor they are not taken on permanent establishment unless they are selected during the regular selection process for grade D post. However, in the instant case there is absolutely no material on record to show that the Respondent worker had acquired the status of temporary worker. So, under such circumstances merely because Respondent worked continuously for 240 days, it can not be said that it was necessary for the employer to issue notice and follow the provisions under I.D. Act. In fact, in a case M.P. Housing Board and Anr. V/s. Manoj Shrivastava 2006 AIR SCW 1235   the Apex Court has observed:Where the employee was appointed as daily wager but not against a vacant post which was duly sanctioned by the statutory authority nor his appointment was made upon following the statutory law operating in the field, he can not be made permanent employee. A daily wager does not hold a post unless he is appointed in terms of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. He does not derive any legal right in relation thereto. Further, only because a person had been working for more than 240 days, he does not derive any legal right to be regularised in service."15. Similar view is taken by their Lordships of the Apex Court in a case Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro. Industrial Development Corporation V/s. S.C. Pande 2006 (1) CLR 1066.16. Thus, having regard to the above mentioned recent decisions of the Apex Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the present Appellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam was not under statutory obligation in this case to issue notice of termination to respondent worker and follow the procedure as laid down under section 25F of the I.D. Act. The present Respondent worker has in fact abandoned his service. He made no grievance about the alleged termination for a period of aboutyears and as such he is certainly not entitled for reinstatement.