Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 490 (PAT)

Gautam Singh v. Central Coalfields Limited

2000-03-28

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment M.Y.EQBAL, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioners, who are 8 in numbers, seek issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to reinstate and regularise the services of the petitioners who have worked under the respondents from January 1992 to 1997 and further to pay all back wages consequent upon reinstatement. 2. The petitioners case is that they were appointed in January 1992 by the White Industries Australia Ltd., Piparwar Project of CCL and they continuously worked till December 1997. It is stated that Respondent No. 5, White Industries Australia Ltd. is a registered project of respondent-CCL which was established for construction, maintenance and repairing of quarters of Australian experts situated within the Piparwar Project. Petitioners were appointed in different posts lamely, electrician, carpenter, plumber, DG Boy, cleaner, etc. and were paid their salary egularly by the then contractor. The Detitioners claimed that they worked for CCL it their instance, salaries were paid to the jetitioners from the fund of CCL. However, :he respondent illegally and arbitrarily stopped :aking work from the petitioners from December 1997. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on ehalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 stating, nter alia, that the petitioners were never engaged and/or employed by CCL and there, loes not exist any relationship of employer and mployee between the petitioners and the espondent-company. The respondents case is hat the Australian Government offered to Drovide interest free loan for construction of Mine-cum-Beneficiation Plant at Piparwar Project of CCL and the Government of India accordingly entrusted Coal India Ltd. for execution of the agreement and similarly Government of Australia entrusted Respondent No. 5 for execution of the same. Accordingly, an agreement between the Respondent No. 5 and Coal India Ltd. was signed in the year 1989 whereby it was decided to open a modern Cast Mine at Piparwar Project. The agreement, inter alia, provided stay of 30 Australian Nationals for a period of 66 months beginning from January 1990. The entire agreement came to an end in October 1997 and the last batch of Respondent No. 5 Personnel left Piparwar Project in the month of October, 1997. The Australian experts, who visited India, were residing in a colony at Piparwar named as "Sangam Vihar". The maintenance of the aforesaid colony was in the hand of Australian expertise themselves by way of engaging electrician, carpenter, cleaner, servants, cook, etc. The Australian experts, who visited India, were residing in a colony at Piparwar named as "Sangam Vihar". The maintenance of the aforesaid colony was in the hand of Australian expertise themselves by way of engaging electrician, carpenter, cleaner, servants, cook, etc. It is stated that the respondent-company had to pay monthly to Respondent No. 5, the incidental expenses of Rs. 250 per day for 13 expatriates, employed by the Respondent No. 5 for actual number of days of stay during the period of the agreement. A copy of the agreement has been annexed as Annexure A to the counter- affidavit. It is further stated that the respondent-company never made any payment to the petitioners on account of their alleged working. 4. I have heard Ms. M.M. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CCL. 5. Ms. Pal, learned counsel, mainly contended that the petitioners must be considered to be the workmen of the principal employer, i. e., the management of CCL and in fact, the management of CCL adopted the camouflage of paying salary to the petitioners through the contractor. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents stopped petitioners from their work arbitrarily with ulterior motive only to deny the benefit of regularisation. Learned counsel then submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners have worked continuously from January 1992, they are entitled to be reinstated in service. Learned counsel put reliance on the Apex Courts Judgment reported in AIR 1987 SC 645 . 6 Admittedly, the petitioners were engaged by the Respondent No. 5, White Industries Australia Ltd. and not by the respondent-CCL and no document has been annexed to show that the petitioners were engaged by CCL through the contractor. In para 4 of the writ application, the petitioners have admitted that they were appointed by the Respondent No. 5 and they worked till December 1997 without any break. It is further stated in the writ petition that the Australian experts, who came to give their special services to CCL authorities for their Piparwar Project, were residing in the area known as "Sangam Vihar" and all the petitioners worked in that Sangam Vihar as electrician, plumber, etc. The petitioners have annexed a chart of Sangam Vihar workers as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioners have annexed a chart of Sangam Vihar workers as Annexure 1 to the writ application. From perusal of Annexure 1, it appears that 32 persons have been shown, who are said to have engaged, as "Sangam Vihar workers". This writ application was initially filed by 23 persons but subsequently by order dated November 29, 1999, the writ application was confined to petitioner Nos. 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 23. There is therefore, only 8 petitioners in this case, out of these 8 petitioners only the names of 6 petitioners are mentioned, in the said chart. The names of petitioner Nos. 14 and 23 do not appear in the said chart (Annexure 1). 7. Be that as it may, the writ petitioners were engaged not by respondent-CCL but by the Respondent No. 5 to work in the Sangam Vihar Colony where the Australian experts were residing. They were engaged to work as electrician, carpenter, plumber, DG Boy, gardener, cleaner, cook, bar boy and also to work as servants of House Nos. 1, 2, 5,7 and 14. The respondent-CCL in the counter affidavit very categorically stated in para 12 that the Australian experts came here for a period of only 66 months and resided in a colony to do the works in terms of the agreement. It is further stated that the entire agreement came to an end in October 1997 and the last batch of Respondent No. 5 Personnel left Piparwar Project in the month of October 1997. It has also been specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent-CCL never made any payment to the petitioners on account of their alleged working. All these facts stated in the counter-affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any reply or rejoinder. It is, therefore, clear that the Australian experts visited India and resided in a colony at Piparwar for a limited period in order to provide some special training for development of Open Cast Coal Mines. It is also evident that some persons including the petitioners were engaged by the respondent No. 5 to work in the quarters where those Australian experts were residing. In the facts of the present case, the question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether the respondent-CCL has any obligation to regularise the services of the petitioners and whether the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service. 8. In the facts of the present case, the question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether the respondent-CCL has any obligation to regularise the services of the petitioners and whether the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service. 8. In State of Gujarat V/s. P.J. Kampavat, AIR 1992 SC 1685 : 1992 (3) SCC 226 : 1993-II-LLJ-771 a similar question came for consideration before the Apex Court. In that case, some persons were appointed purely on temporary basis in the office of Chief Minister for a limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Ministers establishment without conferring any right to absorb in regular cadre. It was held that such an appointment being coterminous with the Chief Ministers tenure, service of such employee came to an end simultaneously with the end of tenure of the Chief Minister . 9 In Sandeep Kumar V/s. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 713 : 1993 Supp (1) SCC 525, their Lordships was considering the similar question of regularisation of services of employees employed on project of slum clearance. In that case, petitioners were working as Junior Engineers in a project placed under the control of the Executive Officer, CT Board, Ghaziabad. The nature of the work was slum clearance and the project was financed by the State Government. The scheme under which the petitioners were working was of a very specific nature and the project was for particular purpose. In the facts of the case, their Lordships held that since the scheme under which the petitioners were working was of a very specific nature and there was no permanent need for the work and, since the project was for a particular purpose, it will not be possible to direct that petitioners may be regularised in service. 10. In the instant case, as noticed above, although 32 persons were engaged in the quarters occupied by the experts who came from Australia but only 6 persons have filed the instant writ petition seeking regularisation of their services on the ground that they have worked for few years, however, they have failed to establish that they were appointed by the respondent-CCL on daily wages and they have been paid their salaries by the respondent- CCL. On the contrary, it is established that these petitioners were engaged by the respondent No. 5 to do some work in the quarter occupied by those persons who visited India for a limited period and also for doing the particular work under a particular scheme. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no right of regularisation has accrued to the petitioners and the respondent-CCL is not liable to reinstate or regularise the services of the petitioners. 11. For the reason aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. This writ application is dismissed.