Judgment:
1. Heard Mr. N. A. Choudhary, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. R. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. The correctness and legality of the order dated 16.08.2001 passed by Writ Court in SWP no. 2460/1999, whereby the petitioner s prayer for regularization in the post he was claiming to work as Casual Labour since 1989 till 1999, was acceded to by the Writ Court, with a direction to the respondents to give benefit to the writ petitioner taking note of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, (for short the Scheme), and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, has been assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal.
3. During the course of hearing, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner has fairly submitted that he does not want to press the issue as regards the applicability of Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, as observed by the Writ Court, which has also been assailed by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the Union of India.
4. In consideration of above submission, we now take up the limited issue as to whether the Scheme, formulated by the appellants in the year 1993, would be applicable to the present case.
5. The case of the respondent before the Writ Court, as the writ petitioner, was that he was appointed as casual labourer in the year 1989. Since then he had been working in the same capacity till 1999 and had completed ten years of continuous service in the capacity of a casual labour in the department concerned. He has sought for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise his service as Class IV employee in the Department.
6. Appellants, as respondents in the Writ Court, while refuting the said averments and contentions made in the writ petition, have taken the stand by filling an affidavit that petitioner was never appointed as casual labourer. Rather he was temporarily engaged on oral understanding only for some days in a month on contractual basis and after the month of September 1999, he was disengaged as no work was available for the petitioner. As such, it has been averred that petitioner is not entitled for his regularization.
7. Having given our due consideration to the arguments so advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and also upon careful consideration of the impugned judgment and order, it appears that respondent had been working in the establishment of the appellants since 1989 upto 1999. However according to the appellants, he was engaged only on temporary basis of oral arrangement. It is the admitted position that the aforesaid Scheme, came into force with effect from 01.09.1993 and the respondent had been admittedly working till 1999 within the operational period of the Scheme.
8. Even though, it is claimed by the appellants that respondent had been engaged on oral arrangement, but, on pointed queries, it could not be brought to the notice of the Court as to how a government department can utilize services of a person without issuing a written order. The business in government departments is not being conducted orally but is being transacted through written orders /communications. As it is admitted by learned counsel for appellants that respondent-writ petitioner was in their temporary engagement, though on the strength of oral agreement, for the purpose of this case, it can be easily said that respondent-writ petitioner was in the service of appellants.
9. The Scheme aforementioned has come into force on 1st of Sept. 1993 and on that date the respondent-writ petitioner was in the service of the appellants. It is the duty of the Court of law to ensure that a person, who is in a lower bargaining position, is not subjected to any kind of exploitation by his employer. The appellants, in view of the mandate contained in the Constitution of India, are duty bound to deal with the citizens in a manner so as to achieve the purpose underlying the constitutional provisions as contained in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. This Court, being a constitutional Institution is, in law, the sentinel and repository of the rights of the people. When it is brought to the notice of the Court that injustice is meted out, a duty is cast on it to undo the same.
10. The appellants, Union of India, and its authorities, in view of facts which have come on record, are duty bound to address to the grievance of respondent, are obliged to accord consideration to his claim in terms of the Scheme. The position which has emerged in this case calls for issuance of appropriate directions.
11. The appellants are, accordingly, directed to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner in terms of the aforesaid Scheme. The process of such consideration shall be undertaken and concluded within a period three months from today. The judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge on 16.08.2001 stands modified accordingly. This disposes of the Letters Patent Appeal along with all connected CMP(s).