Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 214 (UTT)

Ram Gopal v. Indian Institute of Petroleum

2019-03-15

MANOJ K.TIWARI, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : (CLMA No. 436 of 2019) 1. The application, to condone the delay in preferring this review application, is not opposed, and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed. (MCC No. 18 of 2019) 2. This application is filed seeking review of the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in SPA No. 456 of 2014. The appellants preferred the Special Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2014 in WPSS No. 472 of 2013. They filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.09.2012, a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them in accordance with the IIP Casual/Contractual Workers Absorption Scheme, 2000, and in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in WPSS No. 835 of 2004 dated 13.08.2010. 3. The respondent - appellants had earlier filed WPSS No. 835 of 2004, wherein they had contended that they had completed 240 days service for the period upto 17.11.1999, and had sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider their claim, on preferential basis, for appointment as regular Plumbers/Tube-well Operators in the respondent (review applicant) department, considering their services in the department on daily wages. 4. The learned Single Judge took note of the IIP Casual/Contractual Workers Absorption Scheme, 2000 and that, under the Scheme, workers should have been engaged on consolidated wages, and should have completed 240 days service in a year, upto 17.11.1999, to be considered for appointment in a regular vacancy. The review applicant herein was directed to consider the claim of the respondents – appellants - writ petitioners for appointment in a vacancy as per the Scheme, whenever such occasion arose; and, in case they fulfilled the conditions of the Scheme, they should be appointed. 5. On the respondent - appellants request, for being considered in terms of the Scheme being rejected by the review applicant herein on several grounds, including that they had not completed 240 days of service, the respondent - appellants again approached this Court by way of WPSS No. 472 of 2013. The learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition by order dated 08.08.2014, holding that the respondent - appellants had not completed 240 days of service. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred SPA No. 456 of 2014, resulting in the order under review dated 12.09.2018 being passed. The learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition by order dated 08.08.2014, holding that the respondent - appellants had not completed 240 days of service. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred SPA No. 456 of 2014, resulting in the order under review dated 12.09.2018 being passed. In the said order, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had erred in calculating 240 days; and 240 days should be counted in a block of twelve calendar months, and not in one year, even under Section 25-B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.08.2014 was set aside. The Division Bench, thereafter, opined that, in normal circumstances, they would have directed consideration of the appellants’ case for regularization; but, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as they belonged to the lowest strata of society, and as they have been litigating since 1999, they should be deemed to have been regularized immediately after completion of 240 days with all consequential benefits, without any specific order of regularization. 6. The relevant part of the Scheme of absorption of casual/contractual worker reads as under:- “3. Objective and scope of the Scheme: The Scheme being a one-time measure will be applicable to workers who were engaged on casual/contractual basis on consolidated payments of wages who hand completed 240 days (206 days in case of 5 days week) in a year upto 17.11.1999, provided they were and/or are not in employment in any Govt./Semi Govt./Public Sector Undertaking/Local Self-Govt./Public Sector Enterprises/ Autonomous Body etc. after their discontinuance with IIP and they had not left IIP job on their own. 4. Terms and conditions of regularisation: (a) Casual/Contractual Workers should be educationally qualified for the posts for which they may be considered for absorption. Their absorption will be only against the vacancies available and/or those arising in future in Group-D or C category of posts in IIP, by following the procedure prescribed for the post in the relevant recruitment rules. (b) Wherever age limit is prescribed, it will be determined after allowing age relaxation to the extent of the period of service already put in by them on casual basis in IIP. (c) Orders on reservation issued by GOI from time to time and made applicable to CSIR shall be applied for implementation of the Scheme. (b) Wherever age limit is prescribed, it will be determined after allowing age relaxation to the extent of the period of service already put in by them on casual basis in IIP. (c) Orders on reservation issued by GOI from time to time and made applicable to CSIR shall be applied for implementation of the Scheme. (d) Casual/Contractual workers who do not appear in test and/or interview in-spite of age relaxation or who are not successful in two chances in a period of six months will be removed from casual/contractual engagement with one month’s notice or payment in lieu thereof. 5. General Conditions: (a) Regularisation will be considered at the entry level/grade of post of Group-C or Group-D posts (technical or non-technical as the case may be. (b) No direct recruitment in Group-C or Group-D posts (technical or non-technical) from outside candidates shall be made by IIP until the eligible casual/contract workers identified under this Scheme are absorbed. (c) Casual/Contractual Workers on regularisation will not be entitled to any benefits for the past period of casual/contractual service rendered by them as casual/contractual workers.” 7. The object of the Scheme is that only workers engaged on casual/contractual basis, consolidated payment of wages, who have completed 240 days in a year upto 17.11.1999, were eligible to be considered for being absorbed under the Scheme, if they were not in the employment of any Government, Semi-Government, Public Sector Undertaking etc. after their discontinuance with IIP, and they had not left the IIP job on their own. 8. The fact that the respondent - appellants fulfilled this criteria is evident from the order of the Division Bench holding that they had completed 240 days of service. That, however, would not automatically result in their being absorbed into service, for the Scheme prescribed certain other terms and conditions to be fulfilled for their services to be regularized, and only on fulfillment of these conditions would the employee concerned be entitled to have his services regularized. 9. That, however, would not automatically result in their being absorbed into service, for the Scheme prescribed certain other terms and conditions to be fulfilled for their services to be regularized, and only on fulfillment of these conditions would the employee concerned be entitled to have his services regularized. 9. As the petitioners claim, for being considered in terms of the Scheme, was negative on the ground that they had not completed 240 days of service, and the Division Bench had rightly come to the conclusion that they had, the only direction which could have been issued by the Division Bench was that the respondent – appellants be considered for absorption in terms of the Scheme, on fulfillment of the terms and conditions prescribed therein. Instead of doing so, the Division Bench held that the respondent - appellants were deemed to have been regularized, that too from the year 1999, even without ascertaining whether they fulfilled the terms and conditions of the absorption Scheme. 10. We are satisfied, therefore, that the order of the Division Bench, to the limited extent the services of the respondent-appellants were deemed to have been regularized, immediately after completion of 240 days of services with all consequential benefits and without any specific order of regularization, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, necessitating that part of the order to be set aside. 11. The review applicant shall, however, consider the case of the respondent - appellants for absorption in terms of the aforesaid Scheme; and, in case they fulfill the terms and conditions stipulated therein, to then consider absorbing them into service. Since the Division Bench was justified in holding that the respondent - appellants had completed 240 days of service, and this ground for refusing their request for absorption has been negative, we direct the review applicant to consider their case for absorption, in terms of the Scheme, in the light of the representations made by them earlier, strictly in terms of the Scheme, with utmost expedition and, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The review petition stands disposed of accordingly.