1 DBCWP NO.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs. CAT, Jodhpur & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order ::
23. d November 2012. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Basti Chand for the petitioner <><><> BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, now about 56 years of age, seeks to question the order dated 30.01.2012 as passed in Original Application (OA) No.222/2008 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (CAT) declined his prayer for quashing of the alleged verbal order dated 12.06.2000 terminating his services after finding that he was engaged only as a casual labourer intermittently. It appears that the petitioner had been engaged as a casual labourer in the General Reserved Engineering Force (GREF) of the Border Roads Organization. The petitioner alleged termination of his service w.e.f. 12.06.2000 and raised an industrial dispute whereupon a reference was made to the Labour Court at Jodhpur and en ex- parte award was made in his favour in Labour Case No.280/2001 on 01.08.2003. However, the matter was taken up in this Court in CWP No.4941/2007 wherein earlier, the Court directed compliance of the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act of 1947). Stating non-compliance of the order so passed, the 2 DBCWP NO.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs. CAT, Jodhpur & Ors. petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing number 65/2008. The contempt petition and the writ petition both were considered together by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.03.2008. The learned Single Judge observed that GREF was a unit of the Armed Forces discharging sovereign functions and was not an industry for the purpose of the Act of 1947. Hence, the award as made by the Labour Court on 01.08.2003 was declared bad in law and was quashed while leaving it open for the petitioner to avail of appropriate remedy against termination. The petitioner, thereafter, served a notice and then, filed the OA before the CAT that has been dismissed by the order impugned . It appears that while dealing with the matter, the CAT directed the respondents to produce the relevant record of employment of casual labourers from 1986 to 2000 but no such record was produced; and it was given out before the CAT that there had been engagement of casual labourers for different items of work; and there was no system of permanent/regular engagement of casual labourers. On his part, the petitioner could only produce 2 identity cards issued to him by the respondents: one of the year 1986 and another of the year 1999 with the later ones validity having been extended upto 30.06.2000. The CAT found the case lacking in the proof of the basic facts about the continuous engagement of the petitioner and, inter alia, observed as under: - 10. Even the respondents have not denied that on 31.10.1986, at the age of around 25 years, the applicant was for the first time engaged as a casual labourer by them, and was issued the Identity Card at Annex.A/4. Much later, at the age of 3 DBCWP NO.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs. CAT, Jodhpur & Ors. around 40 years, he was issued on 28.07.1999 another Identity Card (at Annex.A/5), initially valid up to 31.12.1999, which validity was extended up to 30.06.2000. However, the two Identity Cards at Annex.A/4 and A/5, separated in time by about 13 years, do not in any manner whatsoever show or prove continuous engagement or employment. The first Identity Card was valid for about seven months, with no extensions of its validity noted anywhere, and the second Identity Card was valid for around six months initially, and its validity was extended by another six months up to 30.06.2000. The CAT also referred to the regulations of the respondents (Annex.A/1) providing that in the engagement of the casual labourers on daily and monthly basis, the period of engagement would not be for more than 6 months in a year; and that the persons so engaged shall not be eligible for any of the privileges of continuous employment; and further that the services were liable to be terminated any time without notice and without any terminal benefit. The petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that 3 of the casual labourers engaged with him were yet being continued by the respondents. The CAT found this submission hardly making out any case for grant of relief in favour of the petitioner particularly when he failed to show continuity of employment. The CAT further observed as under: - 19. In the instant case, even the respondents have not denied that they had engaged the applicant as a casual labourer for those occasional items of work which BRO/BRTF took up for execution near the applicant's village in Barmer District. However, they have specifically stated that following the Regulations as produced by Annex.R/1, and reproduced above in paragraph 5/ante, they had restricted each such casual labourer employment on daily wages to 179 days in a year, and for the people engaged on monthly wage basis for a maximum of six months in a year, as provided for in the rules. The applicant has on his own part not provided any proof of his continued employment except producing photo copies of two identity cards, the first one issued when he was 25 years of age, while the second identity card was issued when he was around 40 years of age. These two together do not go to show or prove in any manner the case of the applicant for any continuity of employment in between, and all through. 4 DBCWP NO.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs. CAT, Jodhpur & Ors. In the given set of facts, the CAT found no reasons to grant relief to the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss the OA. Seeking to question the order so passed by the CAT it has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that termination of petitioners services by oral order had been illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice; and ought to have been pronounced against by the CAT. It is submitted that when the petitioner continued to serve for about 16-17 years, as is proved by the identity cards, and has become over-aged for any other employment, the CAT ought to have considered granting appropriate relief to him. It is also submitted that the respondents having failed to produce the requisite record, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against them and the OA ought to have been allowed. In our view, the submissions do not make out a case for interference. The CAT has examined the matter in thorough detail and found no right in the petitioner for the claimed relief when he had failed to establish his continuous engagement; and merely the two identity cards were not making out a case of continuous engagement. True it is that earlier the Labour Court passed an ex- parte award in favour of the petitioner but ultimately, the learned Single Judge of this Court held even the very proceedings before the Labour Court without jurisdiction. In the ultimate analysis, looking to the nature of engagement of the petitioner that is, as a casual labourer as per the work requirement of GREF, the CAT cannot be faulted in declining the relief as claimed. 5 DBCWP NO.12243/2012 Kalu Ram Vs. CAT, Jodhpur & Ors. In the given set of facts and circumstances, even if any other casual labourer has been re-engaged or continued by the respondents, that by itself, does not invest the petitioner with any legal right. Similarly, mere want of production of the documents by the respondents does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner because, in any event, his engagement has not been beyond that of a casual labourer. When the CAT has found no justification to enforce such casual engagement on the respondents after thorough consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error resulting in failure of justice. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (DR. VINEET KOTHARI),J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
/cpgoyal/