Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 138 (UTT)

ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-03-11

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner No. 1 before this Court is a registered federation, petitioner No. 2 is also a trade union which is affiliated to federation and petitioner No. 3 is one of the casual workers in Border Road Orgainsation (from hereinafter referred to as “BRO”). It is an admitted fact that the BRO is an integral part of Indian Army. 2. The members of petitioner No. 1 – federation, petitioner No. 2 – trade union and petitioner No. 3 claim to be working as casual workers with the BRO in various projects and establishment of BRO in the State of Uttarakhand, which are in the Border areas such as Uttarkashi, Pithoragarh, Chamoli etc. They claim regularization of their services. Their representations in this regard to the concerned authority have been made by the petitioners but in vain. The petitioners now rely upon a decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Defence Civilian Workers Association Vs Union of India & others (SWP No. 432 of 2000 decided on 06.02.2002) and also a judgment of Division Bench of Guwahati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 548 of 1996. 3. As per the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court wherein direction was given to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the Scheme, as they are casual workers. A fact, which was admitted by the respondents/Union of India in the said petition. 4. In another decision of the Guwahati High Court certain directions were again given to the Union of India to regularize the casual workers as per the “scheme”. That case reached the Hon’ble Apex Court where the judgment of the Guwahati High Court was set aside for the reasons that there was actually no Scheme and the reliance by the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court on the said Scheme was entirely misplaced. 5. Nevertheless while setting aside the Guwahati High Court judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court did notice that many of the casual workers in BRO have been working for the last thirty years or so, and therefore, the case of such workers should be considered for Regularization under a Scheme in the ongoing projects. 6. A statement has been given by Mr. Nevertheless while setting aside the Guwahati High Court judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court did notice that many of the casual workers in BRO have been working for the last thirty years or so, and therefore, the case of such workers should be considered for Regularization under a Scheme in the ongoing projects. 6. A statement has been given by Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as Jammu and Kashmir judgment is concerned in terms of the direction of the High Court they have regularized the services of the casual labourers. 7. No Scheme for such regularization has been placed before this Court by any of the parties. However, considering that the directions for the regularizing of casual workers made by the Guwahati High Court have been turned down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the prayer as is being made by the petitioners before this Court cannot be granted. 8. Having made the above determination, however, the fact remains that the Hon’ble Apex Court while setting aside the judgment of the Guwahati High Court had directed the respondents to frame a Scheme for regularization of such casual workers. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also decided with a direction that the respondents shall frame a Scheme for regularizing of such casual workers. The required eligible period of work as casual worker for regularization shall be fixed and determined by the respondents, considering their long years of service. While doing so respondents shall not take into consideration the artificial breaks of the workers. Since this may involve a lot of paper work a reasonable time to do the needful would be six months. 10. As far as allowances payable to them is concerned, in case the same are applicable in the establishment, the same shall also be given to the petitioners in accordance with law for which each workmen is at liberty to place his claim. 11. Let the needful be done within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 12. No order as to costs.