Gujarat High Court

Virendrabhai Chaudhari Son Of ... vs Union Of India & 3 on 23 February, 2015

Author:
Akil Kureshi

Bench:
Akil Kureshi
,
Sonia Gokani

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13222 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

================================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?

================================================================
VIRENDRABHAI CHAUDHARI SON OF SINGHASARIBHAI CHAUDHARI &
35....Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PH PATHAK, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 36
MS PJ DAVAWALA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

Page 1 of 23
C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

Date : 23/02/2015

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

This   petition   is   filed   by   36   out   of   41
applicants of Original Application No.117 of 2009
filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal
('the   Tribunal'   for   short)   challenging   the
judgment   and   order   dated   3rd  August   2011
dismissing   such   original   application.
Considering that the issue is an old one, we have
heard  the  learned  advocates  for  the parties  for
final disposal of the petition.  Brief facts are
as under:

The   present  petitioners,   original­applicants
were   engaged   as   casual   labourers   by   the
Department   of   Telecommunications   and   worked
during the period between August 1985 till April
1992  when  their  services   were terminated   by the
department.     They   challenged     such   termination
before the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Gujarat
in   Reference   ITC   No.15/94.     The   Industrial
Tribunal   by   the   judgment   dated   7th  April   2000,
partly allowed the reference.   Bhavnagar Telecom
District was directed to reinstate the workmen on
the original post with 30% backwages.  This award
has become final. Pursuant to  such  directions,
they were reinstated.

Page 2 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

In   the   meantime,   the   department   had
formulated   a   scheme   called     Casual   Labourers
(Grant   of   Temporary   Status   &   Regularization)
Scheme     of   the   Department   of   Telecommunications
1989   (hereinafter     to   be   referred   to   as   the
'Temporary   Status   Scheme")   for   granting   certain
benefits to casual labour after specified days of
working.   The   scheme   was     circulated   along   with
letter dated 7th November 1989 from the Government
of India, Department of Telecommunications which
contained certain introductory remarks. Reference
to   such   letter   and   the   relevant   terms   of   the
Scheme would be made at a later stage.

Upon their reinstatement in service pursuant
to   the   award   of   the   Industrial   Tribunal,
according to the petitioners, they were entitled
to  grant  of temporary  status  and  other  benefits
as   per   the   said   Temporary   Status   Scheme.
According to them, even as per the Department of
Telecommunications,     by   the   circular   dated
25.6.93, the benefits of  of the Scheme would be
available   to   casual   labourers   engaged     between
31.3.85     to   26.3.88   and   who   were     still
continuing   in   service.     The   petitioners,
thereupon approached the authorities for granting
such benefits.   The AGM (Admn.) from the Office
of   the   General   Manager,   Telecom   District,

Page 3 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

Bhavnagar   under communication dated  27.12.2008
conveyed  to the AGM (Admn.), Office of the Chief
General  Manager,    Telecom,  Ahmedabad    that  "the
matter   regarding   status   of   the   casual   labour,
according     to   the   last   decision   of   Industrial
Tribunal   Court of Gujarat, no clear status has
been   decided.     The   wordings   of   the   award   are
communicated   in   the   reply.   According   to   this
award it is not possible to confirm whether these
casual labours belong to BSNL or Dot.  So far no
specific  order  has  been issued   for these  casual
labours  either  for absorption in BSNL or retain
them in DOT as per this  office record".

The   petitioners   thereupon   approached   the
Central   Administrative   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad   by
filing   the   above­mentioned   original   application
and   prayed     for   grant   of   benefits   under   the
Temporary   Status   Scheme   in   view   of   the   office
order   dated   25.6.93.     Such   original   application
came   to   be   dismissed   by   the     Tribunal   by   the
impugned     judgment.     The   Tribunal   was   of   the
opinion   that   in   view   of   the   decision   of   the
Supreme Court in the case of
State of Karnataka
v. Umadevi
, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the prayers cannot be
granted.
It   is   this   judgment   of   the   Tribunal
which   the   original   applicants   have   challenged
before us.

Page 4 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

Learned   counsel   Shri   Pathak   for   the
petitioners   submitted that the Temporary Status
Scheme     of   the   department   was   not   in   challenge
before the Supreme Court in the case of
Umadevi

(supra).   Even   otherwise,   nothing     is   stated   in
the   judgment   which   would   render   the   scheme
unconstitutional   or   illegal.     It   was   a   scheme
framed by the department itself and the same has
never   been   withdrawn   by   the   department   or
declared     illegal   by   any   court.     He   further
submitted   that   the   petitioners   were     covered
under   the   said   scheme   and   the   benefits   thereof
should have been accorded to them.

On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel
Ms.Davawala   for   BSNL     opposed   the   petition
raising following contentions:

(i) The   petitioners     had   approached   the
Industrial Tribunal where one of the prayers made
was  for permanency.  No such  prayer  was  granted.

The   petitioners'   prayers   in   the   present
proceedings,   therefore,   would   be   hit   by   the
principle of constructive res judicata.

(ii) The   Temporary   Status   Scheme     was   not   an
ongoing     scheme.     It   was   by   way   of   a   one­time
measure.     It   cannot   be   made     applicable   to   all
the employees   at all   points of time.
In this

Page 5 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

context,   she   relied   on   the   decision   of     the
Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India  v.
Mohan Pal
,  (2002)   4   SCC   573   and   in  the  case   of

Controller   of   Defence   Accounts     v.   Dhani   Ram
&
ors. AIR 2007 SC 2650.

(iii) She   submitted   that   the   Industrial
Tribunal   had   directed   reinstatement   of     workmen
with 30% backwages.   There was no direction for
granting continuity. In any case, the services of
the     petitioners   were   terminated   in   the   year
1992.   In the circular dated 17th  December 1993,
one  of the  requirements  for  being  covered  under
the Temporary Status Scheme was  that the workman
must be continuing in service which condition in
the present case was not fulfilled.

The question whether the Temporary Status
Scheme   is   a   continuous   and   ongoing   scheme   or   a
one time measure is not directly at issue in the
present   proceedings.     We,   therefore,     may   not
enter into  a controversy  which does not arise.

In   that   context,   the   decision   of   the   Supreme
Court  cited by the counsel for BSNL in the case
of
Mohan Pal
(supra) and in the case of
Dhani
Ram
(supra)   would   need   no   further   elaboration
though prima facie we notice that such judgments
were     rendered   in   the   background   of   different

Page 6 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

schemes and not  the present one.  However, since
we do not intend to enter into this controversy,
we  refuse  any further  elaboration  on  the issue.
Let   us   test   the   case   of   the   petitioners   on   the
basis   of     the   scheme   as   it   stands.   In   this
context, we may note the contents of the scheme
and   the   decisions   of   the   department   concerning
the   scheme.     The     scheme   was   circulated   along
with a letter dated 7th November 1989, in which it
was recorded that under letter dated   30th  March
1985,   instructions   were   issued   to     stop   fresh
recruitment   and   employment   of   casual   labourers
for any type of work in Telecom Circle/Districts.
Casual   labourers   after   30.3.85   could   be   engaged
in projects and Electrification  Circles only for
specific   works   and   on   completion   of   the   work
such   labourers   would   be   retrenched.     Such
instructions   were   reiterated   later   on.     It   was
therefore stated that :

"3.2     In   view   of   the   above   instructions
normally   no   casual   labourers   engaged   after
30.3.85 would be available for consideration
for   conforming   temporary   status.     In   the
unlikely   event   of   there   being   any   case   of
casual   labourers     engaged   after   30.3.85
requiring   consideration   for   conferment   of
temporary   status,   such   cases   should   be
referred   to   the   Telecom   with   relevant
particulars   regarding   the   action   taken
against   the   officer   under     whom
authorization/approval,   the   irregular
engagement/non­retrenchment was resorted to.

Page 7 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

3.3 110   casual   labourers   who   have   been
recruited   after   30.3.85   should   not   be
granted   temporary   status   without   specific
approval from this office."

With   this   background,   one   may   notice   the
contents   of   the   scheme.   The   scheme   was   made
effective from 1.10.89 onwards. It was applicable
to   the   casual   labourers   employed   by   the
department   of   Telecommunications.     Under   the
scheme,   temporary   status   would   be   conferred
under the following circumstances:

"i. Temporary status would be conferred   on
all   the   casual   labourers   currently   employed
and who have rendered a continuous   service
or at least one year, out of which, they must
have   been   employed   on   work   for   a   period   of
240   days   (206   days   in   case   of   officers
observing. Such labourers will be designed as
temporary mazdoor.

ii. Such   conferment   of   temporary   status
would be without reference to the creation /
availability of regular Gr.D posts.

iii. Conferment   of   temporary   status   on   a
casual labourer would not involve  any change
in   his   duties   and   responsibilities.   The
employment  will be on daily rates of pay on
a   need   basis.   He   may   be   deployed   anywhere
within   the   recruitment   unit   territorial
circles on the basis of availability of work.

iv. Such   casual   labourers   who   work   on
temporary status will not  however be treated
in   the   permanent   establishment   unless   they

Page 8 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

are     protected   through   regular   selection
process for Gr. D posts.

Upon     grant   of   temporary   status,   the   casual
labourers   would   be   entitled   to   following
benefits:

"i. Wages   of   daily   rates   with   reference   to
the   minimum   of   the   pay   scale   for   a   regular
Gr. D official including Dh/IRV & CC.

ii. Benefits in respect of increments in pay
scale will be admissible for every one year
of service subject to performance or duty for
at   least     240   days   (206   days   in
administrative officers observing 5 day week)
in the year.

iii. Leave entitlement will be on a pro­rata
basis,   one   day   for   every   10   day   of   work.
Casual leave  or any other kind of leave will
not be admissible. They will also be allowed
to carry forward the leave   at their credit
on   their   regularization.   They   will   not   be
entitled     to   the   benefits   of   encashment   of
leave   on   termination   of   service   for   any
reason or their quitting service.

iv. Counting   of   50%   of   service   rendered
under   temporary   status   for   the   purpose   of
retirement   benefits   after   their
regularization.

v. After   rendering   three   years   continuous
service   on   attainment   of   temporary   status,
the   casual   labourers   would   be   treated   on   a
par   with   temporary   Gr.   D   employees   for   the
purpose of contribution to General provident
fund and would also further  be eligible for
the grant of festival advance / food advance
on the same conditions as are applicable to

Page 9 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

temporary Group - D.

vi. Until   they   are   regularized,   they   would
be entitled to productivity linked bonus only
at the rates  as applicable to casual labour.

No benefits other than those specified above
will   be admissible  to  casual   labourers  with
temporary status."

In  para 8   of the  said  scheme,  it was  provided
that despite conferment of temporary status, the
services of the casual labourer may be dispensed
with   in   accordance   with   the   relevant   provisions
of   the
Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947
on   the
ground   of     non­availability   of   work.     A   casual
labour   with   temporary   status     can   quit   service
by giving one month notice.

From   the   contents   of   the   Scheme   read   along
with the letter dated 7th November 1989, it can be
seen   that   the   Scheme   nowhere   provided   that     it
would  be  applicable  only  to those  employees  who
were in service before 30th March 1985.  In fact,
the contents of the said letter dated 7th November
1989   would   demonstrate   that   despite   the   anxiety
of the department not to engage casual labourers
in   Telecom   circles   and   districts,   it   was
inevitable that some districts and circles would
have   made   such   engagements.   It   was,   therefore,
provided     that   in   case   of   casual   labourers   who

Page 10 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

have   been   recruited   after   30th  March   1985,
temporary   status   should   not   be   granted   without
specific approval from the Head Office.  This had
dual   purpose.       Firstly,   to   verify   the   reasons
for their engagement contrary to the instructions
of  the department  and     secondly  for  appropriate
steps  in connection with such engagement.  This
letter,   however,   nowhere     provided     that
temporary status would not be granted to a casual
labourer   who   has   been   engaged   after   30th  March
1985   even   though   he   fulfilled     all   the
requirements   of   the   Temporary   Status   Scheme.
Whatever   doubt   one   had   in   mind   came   to   be
completely   removed   when   the   department   issued   a
clarificatory   circular   dated   17th  December   1993
which provided as under:

"I am directed to refer to this office order
No.269­4/93­STN dated 25th  June 1993, wherein
orders   were   issued   to   extend   the   temporary
status to all these Casual Mazdoors who were
engaged   by   the   project
Circles/Electrification   Circles   during   the
period  31­3­85 to 22­7­88 and who were still
continuing   for   such   works   where   they   were
initially engaged and who were not absent for
the last more than 365 days counting from the
date of issue of the above said orders.

2. The matter has further been examined in
this office and it is decided that all those
Casual   Mazdoors   who   were   engaged   by   the
Circles during the period from 31­3­85 to 22­
6­88   and   who   are   still   continuing   for   such

Page 11 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

works   in   the   circles   where   they   were
initially engaged and who are not absent for
the last more than 365 days counting from the
date   of   issue   of   this   order,   be   brought
under the above said scheme.

3. The  engagement   of   casual   mazdoors   after
30.3.85  in  violation   of the  instructions   of
the   Head     Quarter,   has   been   viewed   very
seriously   and   it   is   decided   that   all   past
cases   wherein   recruitment   has   been   made   in
violation of instructions of the Head Quarter
dated   30.3.85   should   also   be   analyzed   and
disciplinary   action   be   initiated   against
defaulting officers.

4. It   has   also   been   decided   that
engagement  of  any  Casual   Mazdoors  after  the
issue   of   this   order   should   be   viewed   very
seriously   and   brought   to   the   notice   of   the
appropriate authority  for taking prompt and
suitable action.  This should be the personal
responsibility   of   the   Head   of   Circles
concerned   DE/Class   II   officers   and   amount
paid   to   such   Casual   Mazdoors   towards   wages
should be recovered from the person who has
recruited/engaged  Casual Labour in violation
of these instructions.

5. It   is   further   stated   that   the   services
of   all   the   casual   mazdoors   who   have   not
rendered at least 240 days (206 days in the
case   of   Administrative   Offices   observing   5
days a week) of service in a year on the date
of   issue   of   these   orders     should   be
terminated after following the conditions as
laid down in I.D. Act, 1947 under Section 25­
F, G & H.

6. These   orders   are   issued   with   the
concurrence   of   Member   (Finance)   vide   U.O.
No.3811/93­FA­I dated 1.12.93."

Page 12 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

This   circular  clarified  many   things.   So far
as   we   are   concerned,   firstly   it   clarified   that
the  Temporary  Status  Scheme  would  be   available
also  to those  casual   labourers   who were  engaged
after 31.3.85 but subject to the conditions   of
them   still continuing for such work and     were
not   absent   for   the   last     more   than   365   days
counting from the date of  issuance of the order.
Thus, even according to the department, the said
Temporary   Status   Scheme   would   be   applicable   to
casual   labourer     engaged   between   31.3.85   to
22.6.88 but subject to the rider that he should
not   be   absent   for   more   than   365   days   counting
from the date of issuance of the clarification.

Let us examine the facts of the  present case
in   the   background   of     these   provisions.     The
petitioners   were   engaged   in   August   1985   and
worked   till they  were  terminated  in April  1992.
Their terminations were later on declared illegal
by the Industrial Tribunal.  They were  directed
to   be   reinstated   with   30%   backwages.     The
Industrial   Tribunal   held   that   the   services   were
terminated   without   following   the   mandatory
requirements   of
section   25F
of   the   Industrial
Disputes   Act,   1947.     The   Industrial   Tribunal
concluded   that   the   termination   was   illegal,
improper and unjust and the workmen were entitled

Page 13 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

for   reinstatement.   The   Industrial   Tribunal
further     observed   that   though   the   normal   rule,
if the workman is reinstated,  would be to award
full backwages,  but looking to the nature of the
work and looking to the period of their working,
it   is   desirable   that   30%   backwages   should   be
awarded   to   the   concerned   workmen   calculated   on
the   basis   of   average   of   six   months   earning
preceding the termination.

Thus by virtue of the award of the Industrial
Tribunal   the   terminations   of   the   petitioners
were  rendered     illegal.    If that  be so,     there
would   be   no   termination   in   the   eye   of   law.   The
Industrial   Tribunal   was     prompted   to   grant   30%
backwages   instead of 100% in view of the facts
of   the   case   though   according   to   the   Industrial
Tribunal,   the   normal   rule   would   be   of   awarding
100% backwages.  We have no manner of doubt that
by   virtue   of   such   award   of   the   Industrial
Tribunal,   the   termination   of   the   workmen   stood
set aside for all purposes except  for  backwages
which was limited to 30% backwages.   In the eye
of   law,   therefore,   when   the   department   issued
circular   dated   17th  December     1993,   the
petitioners   were   deemed     to   be   in   service,
their reinductment physically at a later point of
time notwithstanding.

Page 14 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

All the petitioners thus fulfilled the basic
requirements for   being considered for temporary
status   and   the   benefits   under   the   Temporary
Status Scheme. The respondents, therefore, could
not have  denied the benefits of the said scheme
to the petitioners.

The contention that the judgment and award of
the   Industrial   Tribunal     would   work   as   a   res
judicata   cannot   be   accepted.   Before   the
Industrial Tribunal, the workman may have applied
for permanency. However, the question of grant of
benefits  under  the  Temporary   Status  Scheme    was
nowhere       at   issue   before   the   Industrial
Tribunal.   The Industrial Tribunal framed issues
as under:

(a) Whether the second party has proved that the
concerned   47   workmen   have   worked   for   more   than
240 days in a calendar year?

(b) Whether the second party has  proved that the
first   party     has   terminated     the   services   in
violation   of
section   25F
of   the   Industrial
Disputes Act?

(c) Whether   the   action   of   the   Telecom   District
Manager,   Bhavnagar   in   terminating     the   services
of the 47 workmen is justified ?

Page 15 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

(d) What relief should be given to the concerned
workmen ? And

(e) What final order?

It   can   thus   be   seen   that   the   question   of   their
regularization   or   permanency   was   never   at   issue
before   the   Industrial   Tribunal.     In   any   case,
the  question   regarding    grant  of  benefits  under
the Temporary Status Scheme   was not an issue in
the   said   proceedings   before   the   Industrial
Tribunal.

The   conclusion   of   the   Tribunal     that   by
virtue   of   the   judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court   in
the case of
Umadevi
(supra), the petitioners even
though   may   be   covered     by   the   Temporary   Status
Scheme     cannot   claim   the   benefits   flowing
therefrom     also   cannot   be   accepted.     We   have
noticed that the Temporary Status Scheme allowed
certain   limited   benefits   to   the   workmen   after
certain   duration   of   work.   The   benefits   did   not
include automatic regularization in service. They
would   be     granted   semi­permanency   benefits   and
better   working   conditions.   They   would   still   not
draw   salary     in   any   regular   scale.

These
benevolent provisions by the State employer have
not   been   frowned     upon   by   the   Supreme   Court   in

Page 16 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

the case of
Umadevi
(supra). This issue has come
up   for   consideration   before   Division   Bench   of
this  Court  at least  on  two occasions,  reference
to which may be presently made.

In the case  of
Telecom District Manager   v.
Jagdishkumar D. Varatiya and Ors.
, in a judgment
dated   13.8.2014,     in   Special   Civil   Application
No.8499 of 2013, this Court  held and observed as
under:

"12. It can thus be seen that the temporary
status  scheme  was  a welfare  scheme  prepared
by   the   department.   It   was   not   a   scheme   for
regularization   of   casual   labourers.   Nowhere
the   scheme   envisaged   regularization.   The
scheme   itself   recognized   a   degree   of
continuity   of   a   casual   labourer   who   had
worked   continuously   for   one   year   or   for   a
period of 240 days during the past one year.
In such cases, instead of treating a casual
labaourer   as   a   purely   daily   rated   workman
whose relationship with the employer would be
snapped   at   the   end   of   each   day   without   any
further liability of the employer, some basic
benefits   were   made   available   to   such
temporary   status   casual   labourers.   By   very
nature   of   things,   organizations   such   as
telecommunications   and   railways   would   have
perennial need for casual labourers in large
number.   Instead   of,   for   years   together,
treating   their   status   as   merely   in   casual
employment,   if   some   benefits   of   temporary
status   are   made   available   to   them,   it   was
merely   in   tune   with   the   concept   of   welfare
State  and  model  employer   and  otherwise  also
in tune with the basic philosophy of fairness

Page 17 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

by the State in the matter of employment of
labourers.   As   noted,   the   scheme   was   to
alleviate   the   status   of   a   casual   labourer
after   serving   a   period   of   continuous   work
under   which   he   would   be   entitled   to   basic
benefits, such as, paid leave, carry forward
of   leave,   festival   and   food   advances   and
productivity   linked   bonus.   In   our   opinion,
nowhere   in   the   scheme   envisaged
regularization.   BSNL   therefore   had   no  locus
to   challenge   the   direction   for   considering
their cases for grant of temporary status.

13. Coming to the question of merits of the
decision of the Tribunal, we do not find that
the   Tribunal   committed   any   error.   All   that
the  Tribunal   directed  the  department   was  to
consider the case of original applicants for
grant   of   temporary   status   in   terms   of   the
scheme. They had put in more than six years
of service, in each year exceeding 240 days.
At   the   time   they   approached   the   Tribunal,
they were protected against termination. Even
without   such   protection,   the   original
applicants  had  rendered  more   than  six  years
of   almost   continuous   service.   The   Tribunal,
therefore,   directed   DOT   to   implement   their
scheme   qua   these   applicants   and   grant   them
temporary status, if they are otherwise found
suitable.

14. The judgment in case of
Umadevi
(supra)
struck   at   the   root   of   regularization   of
casual   employees   in   government   departments
and   its   agencies,   when   such   actions   were
without following any procedure. It was held
that   such   regularization   would   amount   to
back­door entry in public service which would
be   hit   by
Articles   14
and
of   the
Constitution.   It   may   be   argued   that,   any
action of employer, being a State within the
meaning   of
Article   12
of   the   Constitution,

Page 18 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

regularizing   service   of an  employee  who  was
not   selected   regularly   after   inviting   all
eligible   applicants   who   applied,   would   be
impermissible.   It   may   also   be   argued   that
even   a   scheme   framed   for   such   purpose   of
regularization,   unless   was   saved   by   the
observations of the Court in para 53, would
also   be   unconstitutional.   In   the   present
case, we are concerned not with the scheme of
regularization,   but   with   grant   of   temporary
status.   We   have   taken   detailed   note   of
various   provisions   contained   in   the   said
scheme.   Such   provisions   would   demonstrate
that   the   scheme   nowhere   envisages
regularization   of   casual   labourers.   The
scheme   merely   grants   some   enhanced   benefits
in   terms   of   leave,   advances   and   bonus.
Essentially,   it   alleviates   the   status   of
casual   labaourer   from   merely   a   daily   rated
worker, who would be paid only for the number
of   days   he   actually   worked,   to   that   of   a
person who would, on completion of ten days
of   work,   be   entitled   to   one   day   paid   rest
who,   because   of   his   length   of   service   with
the   department,   can   seek   festival   and   food
advances.

Such   welfare   measures   even   in
favour of casual labourers have not been held
to be impermissible by the Supreme Court in
case   of
Umadevi
(supra).

If   ultimately   the
question of regularization of these original
applicants arises in future, applicability of
the decision of the Supreme Court in case of

Umadevi
(supra) may have to be examined.

15.
In   the   judgment   dated   09.07.2013   in

State   of   Gujarat   &   Ors.   v.   PWD   Employees
Union & Ors.
in Civil Appeal No.5321­5322 of
2013   arising   out   of   SLP(C)   13619­13620   of
2012, the Supreme Court upheld the directions
given   by   this   Court   for   granting   certain
benefits   under   the   scheme   framed   by   the
Government.

Our   attention   is   also   drawn   to

Page 19 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

the judgments of Division Bench of this Court
in   case   of
Bharat   Sanchar   Nigam   Ltd.   v.
R.K.Shaikh
dated   09.01.2014   in  SCA   No.5778
of 2008 and in
Union of India v. Lalsingh K.
Rathod
dated 18.7.2013 in SCA No.6205 of 2011
where   same   or   similar   issues   came   up   for
consideration before the Court. Petitions of
the Government of India and its agencies were
dismissed."

Likewise,   in   the   case   of
Ashok   Virambhai
Kargatia  v.  Union of India
, in a judgment dated
12.1.2015 in Special Civil Application No.9721 of
2014,  this Court observed as under:

"15. Coming   to   the   issue,   on   merits   we   have
recorded   the   petitioners   service   history.
After   being   initially   engaged   as   a   casual
labourer,   his   services   were   terminated.   He
had to move one forum after another to have
the   question   of   legality   of   the   termination
decided   on   merits.   The   Civil   Suit   was
transferred   to   the   Tribunal.   The   Tribunal
dismissed   the   Original   Application   as
involving issues of
Industrial Disputes Act
.
The   petitioner,   thereupon,   raised   an
industrial   dispute.   The   Industrial   Tribunal
held that the department is not an industry.

The   High   Court   corrected   the   view   and
remitted   the   matter   back   to   the   Industrial
Tribunal   for   decision   on   merits.   The
Tribunal,   thereupon,   declared   that   the
termination   was   illegal   and   directed
reinstatement of the workman with continuity
of service but without backwages. The case of
the petitioner, therefore, ought to have been
considered   for   temporary   status   in   terms   of
the   departments   scheme   considering   his
continuous   service   from   his   inception.   His

Page 20 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

case   could   not   have   been   excluded   from   the
consideration basing reliance on the judgment
of   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.
Umadevi
(3) and
others
(supra).

Even in the
Constitution   Bench   judgment   in   the   case   of

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.
Umadevi
(3)   and
others
(supra),   the   Supreme
Court   has   kept   a   window   open   for
consideration   of   regularization   of   those
workmen who had rendered more than 10 years
of   service.   While   doing   so,   it   was,   of
course, provided that such benefit would not
flow   in   favour   of   litigious   employees.   The
basis   of   this   was   that   one   who   enjoyed
interim protection of Courts successively by
challenging termination from service, cannot
then   argue   that   having   rendered   continuous
service   for   years   together,   he   should   be
considered   for   regularization.   The   facts   of
the present case were starkly different. The
petitioner   had   to   battle   before   different
Courts   for   having   his   termination   declared
illegal.   Once  such   declaration   was   made,   he
was   entitled   to   full   benefits   flowing   from
the   final   directions   of   reinstatement   with
continuity.   Such   judgment   of   the   Industrial
Tribunal   had   become   final.

The   department
could not have taken shelter of the exclusion
clause   contained   in   the   judgment   of

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.
Umadevi
(3) and
others
(supra) nor could have
the   Tribunal   non­suited   the   petitioner   on
this ground. To reiterate, the petitioner had
succeeded   before   the   Court   of   competent
jurisdiction   in   establishing   that   his
termination   by   the   department   was   illegal
with further direction for reinstatement with
continuity. That being so, he was entitled to
all   consequential   benefits.   It   is   not   the
case   of   the   respondents   that   he   was   not
covered by the scheme of temporary status and

Page 21 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

regularization in service. They have also not
denied that other employees engaged after him
have got such benefit of temporary status and
regularization   long   back.   Unfortunately,
since   the   case   of   the   petitioner   for
reinstatement   got   tangled   in   one   legal
dispute   after   another,   the   final   direction
for reinstatement got delayed. He, therefore,
did not get the same benefits which his co­
workers and juniors received. He has, by now,
put   in   28   years   of   service   without   any
benefit of permanency or even regular salary.

16. Under the circumstances, the judgment of
the   Tribunal   dated   10.5.2013   passed   in
Original   Application   No.439   of   2010   is   set
aside. The respondents are directed to grant
the   benefit   of   temporary   status   and
regularization to the petitioner in terms of
the   scheme   of  the   department   from   the
respective   date   when   his   immediate   juniors
received such benefit with all consequential
benefits   including   actual   difference   in
salary. These directions shall be carried out
latest by 31.3.2015. Petition is disposed of
accordingly."

In   the   result,   the   impugned   judgment   dated
3.8.2011   of   the   Tribunal   is   reversed.     The
respondents are directed to grant the benefits of
Temporary  Status   Scheme  to the  petitioners    and
pay   the   difference   in   salary   but   without
interest.   These   directions   shall   be   carried   out
latest   by   30th  April   2015.   The   petition   is
disposed of accordingly.

(AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Page 22 of 23

C/SCA/13222/2014 JUDGMENT

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.)
(vjn)

Page 23 of 23