Rajendra Babu, J.
C.A. No. 3221 OF 2000
1. The respondent brought a suit on the basis of certain instructionsissued by the appellant-Board for absorption of daily-wage workers towork-charged establishment who had completed 500 days of service.While the Trial Court did not have the benefit of the circular, theappellate court did have the benefit of that circular dated 19.9.1991.The Trial Court, however, decreed the suit.
2. In the appeal, the appellate court noticed that the respondent ineach of these cases had completed 500 days as daily-wage worker by thecut-off date, which had been extend from time to time. Thus it wasfound that the respondent in each of the cases was entitled to beabsorbed as work-charged worker. But the appellant-Board had notconsidered his case while passing the order impugned in the suit and,therefore, he was entitled to be absorbed as work-charged worker byconversion from daily wage worker to the work-charged establishment.
3. The matter was carried in second appeal to the High Court. Theprincipal contention put forth before the High Court is that not only thedaily wage worker should have 500 days of service by the cut-off date butalso must continue to be in the service of the Board on the date ofissuance of the circular. The High Court, however, found that there wasno stipulation that such a daily wage worker should be actually inservice on the date of issuance of the circular and on that basisdismissed the second appeal. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
4. The relevant portion of the circular dated 19.9.1991 reads asfollows:
'The matter regarding conversion of daily wage workers into work-charge has been reviewed by the Board and it has been decidedthat all daily wage workers who have put in 500 working days inthe service of the Board upto thirteenth September eighty eight[30.9.88] and are continuing in service of Board shall be eligible tobe converted into work-charge workers. These conversions will besubject to availability of work charge posts and no furtherappointments will be made on daily wage basis.'
5. The High Court read the circular only upto the Cut-off date and notthereafter. The latter part, which clearly states 'and are continuing inservice of Board' in order to become eligible to be converted into work-charged employees was lost sight of by the High Court. Therefore, it washeld that the sole condition to be fulfilled was that the daily wage workershould have put in 500 working days upto the Cut-off date. Thatinterpretation will not be correct in the circumstances of the case, whentwo conditions had been imposed; firstly that the concerned daily wageworker should not only put in 500 working days in service upto the cut-off date, and secondly, would be in continuous service upto the date ofissuance of the circular in order to become eligible to be converted intodaily wage worker. The second aspect could not have been ignored at all.
6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the order made by the High Courtis set aside and the matter shall stand remitted to the High Court forfresh consideration on this aspect of the matter with reference to factsarising in the case.
C.A. Nos. 3223/2000, 3222/2000, 3229/2000 & 3230/2000
7. The question raised in each of these appeals is identical to that ofC.A. No. 3221/2000. Following the said decision and for the reasonsstated therein, these appeals are allowed in the same terms as set forththerein.