Judgment:
D.K. Sinha, J.
1. This is an application for condonation of delay In filing the appeal which is time barred by 167 days as per the Office Report.
Explaining the delay, it was submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants.that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation, which was accompanied by a photo copy of the impugned judgment and order but inadvertently certified copy of the impugned judgment and order was not accompanied alongwith this appeal. Subsequently the appeal was notified as defective by the Office and thereafter certified copy of the impugned judgment was also filed. The Registry counted the period of limitation from the date of filing of the certified copy of the Impugned judgment and order and, therefore, it became time barred.
2. Having perused the reasons for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the appeal having been filed within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of impugned judgment and order, although without the certified copy, a lenient view of the matter may be taken in the interest of justice and hence delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 2878 of 2008) is, accordingly, allowed.
L.P.A. NO. 50 OF 2008
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2497 of 1995(P) by which the writ petition filed by the petitioners, claiming regularization of their services on the ground that they had worked for a long period and were removed from service arbitrarily and illegally in the year 1995 during the pendency of the writ application, was dismissed.
2. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by the counsel for the appellants-workmen claiming regularization that the appellants had been discharging duties in the State of Jharkhand on dally wage basis and, therefore, after completion of 240 days their services could not have been dispensed with without taking recourse to the provisions ofindustrial Disputes Act.
3. This is the short point which has been raised on behalf of the appellants-workmen and was responded by the counsel for the respondentState, who contended that the petitioners-appellants had been engaged on daily wage basis after 1985 and were not fit for regularization in view of the policy decision taken by the erstwhile State of Bihar dated 18.6.1993 wherein it was decided that all those workmen who had been discharging duties continuously for 240 days prior to 1.8.1985 were to be regularized and all those who had been engaged subsequent to 1.8.1985 were not considered fit for regularization and hence it was ordered that their services would be dispensed with after giving them notice a long with three months pay in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. It is an admitted position that the appellants-workmen had already received the notice as also three months pay in terms of Section 25-F and thereafter their services were dispensed with but they filed the writ petition challenging their termination instead of approaching the Industrial Tribunal by getting the Reference initiated for adjudication of the dispute, if at all it was existing.
5. It is No doubt true that if the appellants-workmen claimed regularization on the basis of having continuously discharge the duty for more than 240 days and the policy decision taken by the State Government in the year 1993, it was open for them to challenge the termination by getting the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The appellants, for reasons best known to them, did not take recourse to the appropriate legal remedy that was available to them under the Industrial Disputes Act and in the writ petition the same being disputed question of fact could not have been adjudicated.
6. At this juncture, the question arose whether the policy decision taken by the erstwhile State of Bihar to dispense with the service of those employees who had been engaged on daily wages after 1.8.1985 could be terminated by virtue of the policy decision taken in the year 1993 was not open to challenge as the Apex Court vide order dated 30.10.2000 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18164 of 1999 (State of Bihar and Ors. v. Laghu Sichal Kartnachari Sangh and Ors.) was pleased to upheld the policy decision taken by the Government to retain and regularize only those workmen who had been engaged prior to 1.8.1985 and, therefore, it was not open for the appellants-workmen to continue in service even if they had been engaged prior to the cut off date i.e. 1.8.1985.
7. Since the cut off date fixed by the State Government for dispensing with the services of the workmen was upheld up to the Supreme Court, it is obviously not open for this Court to enter into the question of discrimination which might have emerged from the policy decision taken by the State giving the benefit of the same to only those employees who were engaged prior to 1.8.1985 and had discharged duties for more than a period of 240 days. Besides this, the respondent-State has already taken recourse to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act as it is the admitted case of the parties that the workmen whose services had been dispensed with were given notice and three months pay in lieu of notice in those cases where notices were not (granted. Thus, the requirement of the Industrial Disputes Act was also ensured by the respondent-State apart from the policy decision to dispense with the service of those workmen who had been engaged after 1.8.1985.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the position which emerges out of the same, this appeal is not fit to be entertained. Consequently, it is dismissed but without any order as to costs.