Judgment:
Mr. George Paracken, Judicial Member
The applicant has originally filed this case before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Writ Petition(C) No.13759/2006. Later on, when the service matters of the BSNL has come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, this matter was transferred from High Court of Kerala and registered in this Tribunal as TA 57/08.
The prayer of the applicant in this case are as follows:-
i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner by considering his continuous service of 15 years.
ii) Such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
It is seen that the applicant was a casual labourer with 357 days of service at his credit from 1.10.1981 to 30.11.1982 with the respondents. Thereafter, he was not available for the period from 1.12.82 to 30.11.89. According to him, he had again entered service as bill worker on daily wages under One Mr Haneefa who is a phone mechanic under 1st respondent on contract basis. He had earlier approached this Tribunal several times by filing OAs No.516/88, 600/92, 255/94, 1573/95, 1096/96,
591/99 and 660/01 from time to time.
The last OA filed by him was 660/2001 which was decided on 23.4.2002. In the said OA he has sought a declaration that he was entitled to be empaneled as a Mazdoor in the Telecommunication Department and for a direction to the respondents to empanel him as an approved casual mazdoor and engage him and to give work in preference to his juniors. After careful consideration of the aforesaid prayer, the said OA was dismissed on 23.4.2002 and its operative part was as under:-
"3 On a careful perusal of the pleadings and materials placed on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side I find that the applicant
has no legitimate basis to claim a declaration that he is entitled to be empanelled as a Mazdoor in the Telecom Department and for a direction to the respondents to
empanel him as an approved casual mazdoor and engage him for work. A direction for quashing A-12 also cannot be granted. The applicant having not approached for re-engagement within three years of his last engagement from 1982 onwards and his claim for re-engagement having been not allowed by the Tribunal in its order in OA 516 of 1988, the stand taken by the respondents not to re-engage him on the basis of his previous engagement cannot be faulted in view of the decision of the Tribunal in OA 1027/91 and connected cases which has been upheld by the Apex Court. The case of the applicant that he was engaged from 1990 continuously runs contra to what has been claimed by him in OA 1573/95, as the applicant's claim in that case was for re-engagement alleging that he was not being engaged. As the applicant has not established any right for empanelment for re-engagement, I do not find any ground to grant the reliefs as sought. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The dismissal of this application would not in any way stand in the way of the respondents department considering the applicant for future engagement taking into account the fact that he had been engaged in the past and had gained experience, in preference to freshers. No costs."
From the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, it is seen that applicant has not established any right for empanelment/re-engagement. Once this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that the applicant has not established his right for empanelment/re-engagement, there is no question of directing the respondents to regularise his service as prayed for in this TA. We, therefore do not find any merit in this TA and therefore it is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.