Disposed

Ramesh Chandra Nagar and 18 Others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020WRIA/9743/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Drivers challenged rejection of their regularisation claims on the ground that they were engaged through contractors. The court set aside the rejection and directed fresh individual consideration under the applicable regularisation scheme, with a reasoned order within three months of production of a certified copy.

What did the court decide?

Rejection order set aside; fresh individual consideration of regularisation claims and a reasoned order directed within three months of production of a certified copy.

Ramesh Chandra Nagar and 18 Others Vs New… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9743 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Nagar And 18 Others Respondent :- New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Shivam Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- KaushalendraNathSingh,AnilKumarMehrotra Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

¶7

By means of the present petition, the petitioners herein (19 in number), are challenging the order dated 8.11.2017 passed by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short referred to as 'NOIDA') whereby the representation moved by the petitioners for regularisation of their services pursuant to the Government order dated 31.12.2001, has been rejected. Relevant facts in brief to decide the controversy at hands are that the petitioners claim to have been appointed in the year 1989 as drivers on daily wage basis at the wages of Rs.100/- per day since the year 1989. They claim that they are still working with NOIDA Authority. Vide letter dated 5.1.1994, the project engineer had recommended for regularisation of the daily wage drivers after taking due sanction from the State Government.

¶8

The State Government vide Government orders dated 1.12.1995 and 2.9.1997 directed the authorities of concerned department to get sanction of posts of driver in proportion of the sanctioned vehicles.

¶9

The NOIDA Board vide resolution dated 5.7.1999 proposed for creation of 64 additional posts of drivers and sought approval of the State Government.

¶10

It is contended that regular drivers working in NOIDA are getting more

¶11

¶12

than Rs.5000/- per month whereas petitioner are getting only Rs.100/- per day towards wages.

¶13

Various representations were moved by the petitioners including other drivers working in NOIDA seeking regularisation of their services. In writ petition no.44838 of 2001, this court had issued direction to the State Government to take a decision on the proposal send by the Board of NOIDA for creation of 64 additional posts of driver and further to regularise the services of petitioners as drivers in NOIDA and also to pay them regular salary as admissible in law.

¶14

It is contended that despite categorical direction issued by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.9.2002, no decision had been taken on the representations moved by the drivers to the Chief Executive Officer, Noida on 7.11.2002 and 8.1.2004. Fresh advertisement inviting applications for appointment on 8 posts of driver was issued ignoring the claim of daily wage drivers seeking their regularisation. The said advertisement was challenged in writ petition no.48390 of 2004 (Ram Kumar and others vs State of U.P and others) wherein this Court had issued an interim order staying further process under the advertisement. The said writ petition was finally decided vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2005 when the claim of drivers regarding preferential treatment in the regular process of appointment was directed to be considered by the competent authority. It was observed by this Court that though it would not be appropriate for the Court to interfere with the selection process undertaken by the respondent at that stage, but the selection pursuant to the impugned advertisement and appointment had been made subject matter of adjudication in favour of the petitioners, with the further direction to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the representation made before them.

¶15

It was observed by this Court that the question as to whether there was employee-employer relationship between the petitioners and NOIDA, keeping in view the length of services rendered by the petitioners as

¶16

¶17

drivers in the NOIDA authority. The direction was, thus, issued to consider the claims of the petitioners in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others reported in ( 2001) 7 SCC 1 (paragraph nos.'71' to '77', '88', '97', '101', '107' and '125' of the judgment).

¶18

However, NOIDA in contravention of the above directions issued another advertisement dated 30.6.2005 for filling up one post of driver which was challenged in another Writ Petition no.52316 of 2005 (Ramesh Chandra Nagar & Others vs State of U.P & others), seeking for quashing of the said advertisement and filling up vacancies of drivers from amongst the petitioners and other similarly situated daily wage drivers. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2005. A Special Appeal no.1403 of 2005 has been filed against the said judgment in the month of November, 2005.

¶19

In the meantime, the State Government vide Government Order dated 24.2.2016 took a decision to regularise the services of daily wage workers including those working on work charge basis.

¶20

The aforesaid Special Appeal was pursued seeking benefit of the said Government order issued by the State Government.

¶21

The Division Bench while allowing the Special Appeal vide judgement

¶22

and order dated 2.8.2017 made the observations as under:-

¶23

“Learned counsel for the NOIDA Authority was directed to seek instructions in the matter. Counsel for the NOIDA Authority on the basis of instructions states that the appellants were appointed on work charge basis and he has failed to produce any contract which can establish any relationship of the appellants as contractual employees employed with the NOIDA Authority. The engagement on work charge basis is not permissible under law. The engagement can be on work charge basis if the department wants to manage the situation prevailing at the particular point of time in absence of any contract of engagement or any agency of contract. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted that the appellants were contractual employees and they were engaged through some contractor. The established principle in the department is that whenever the contractual appointment is made through any agency or contract then the agreement is entered into between the contractor and the department. The verbal assertion and the mode of engagement as indicated by counsel for the NOIDA Authority goes to indicate that the appellants were not engaged on contractual basis by the NOIDA Authority. May be that the posts were not available at the relevant time but counsel for the appellants has informed the Court that at the moment, 42 vacancies are lying vacant and requisition has also been sent to the Government by the NOIDA Authority for sanctioning of 64 more posts of driver. The total engagement of such drivers was 48 in numbers as against the vacant post of 40. It is informed that some more posts are in contemplation and very shortly the posts would be sanctioned.

¶24

The question is as to what relief can be claimed by the appellants. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge goes to indicate that at the relevant point of time when the writ petition

¶25

¶26

filed by the appellants was decided, there was no such provision in regard to the regularization of contractual employees. The Government has taken conscious decision on 24.2.2016 wherein the Government has proceeded to provide that all employees, daily wage, contractual and work charge employees who are working in the Government establishment or authorities would be regularized as per the norms fixed by the Government. The aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken by the NOIDA Authority up till now. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in respect of the claim of the appellants is not in accordance with law and neither the same will govern the field as the burden is on the NOIDA Authority to consider the regularization of the appellants and the similarly situated persons in the light of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed.

¶27

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the NOIDA Authority is directed to consider the claim of the appellants for regularization in the light of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order.”

¶28

The said decision of the Special Appellate court had not been challenged

¶29

further and hence had attained finality.

¶30

Thereafter, the petitioners and other similarly situated drivers who are eligible for regularisation under the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 had pressed their claim by submitting a representation dated 4.9.2017 which was rejected vide order dated 8.11.2017.

¶31

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision of the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA is in the teeth of directions issued by the Special Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2017. The issue as to whether the petitioners/appellants therein are contractual employees and that whether have been engaged through contractor or directly engaged by NOIDA, had been set at rest by the Special Appellate Court. It was, thus, not open for the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA to reject the representations filed by the petitioners merely on the ground that they were neither engaged on contract nor were daily wage or work charge employees and hence the scheme of the Government order dated 24.2.2016 would not be applicable to them. The reasoning that the petitioners were engaged through the contractors as per the work exigencies in different projects etc in the decision of the Chief Executive Officer is not sustainable being demonstrably in disobedience and disrespect to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The claim of the petitioners has not been considered in the correct perspective and the order impugned, therefore, is liable to be set aside being illegal and contemptuous in nature. The contempt application (Civil) no.1233 of

¶32

¶33

2018 was, therefore, filed before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 9.3.2018 passed by this Court. A Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15380 of 2018 was then filed to challenge the order dated 9.3.2018 passed in contempt petition no.1233 of 2018, which was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the NOIDA Authority before this Court with the observations that the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the contentions in the writ petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners places two supplementary affidavits filed to bring on record the copy of the representations filed by the petitioners as also the details of working of the petitioners with NOIDA Authority.

¶35

In paragraph no.'6' of the supplementary affidavit dated 21.7.2019, the year of engagement of each of the petitioners has been given with the further contention in the subsequent paragraphs therein that the petitioners have been doing duties with the NOIDA Authority since the date of their initial engagement and have been discharging their duties regularly to the satisfaction of their superiors. They have also been engaged for election duties.

¶36

Sri Shivam Yadav, learned Advocate appearing for the NOIDA, however, places reliance on the stand taken by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on his behalf. It is stated therein that the petitioners have not been able to produce any appointment letter or any other correspondences which would show that they were engaged as daily wage employees or on muster-roll. NOIDA Authority does not recognize the claim of working of the petitioners in absence of any such record. In fact, NOIDA had engaged work-force as per the requirement on monthly basis through a contractor and as such there is no record of the petitioners having worked in the Authority. Moreover, the petitioners cannot claim that they have worked for 240 days uninterruptedly as daily wage employees. They, as

¶37

¶38

such cannot claim any regularization.

¶39

There is no record available with the NOIDA to even ascertain that the petitioners were appointed at any point of time. The claim raised by the petitioners herein had been rejected as they do not fall under any of the criteria fixed by the State Government 4.2.2016. The petitioner's salary had not been paid directly from the accounts of NOIDA nor they had ever worked as daily wagers. The supplier/contractor engaged to provide work-force was supposed to know the period of their engagement. Certain work order issued to the supplier/contractors in the year 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 have been brought on record to assert the said stand of the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.

¶40

Another supplementary counter affidavit has been filed pursuant to the direction of this Court to bring on record the contract or agreement, if any, entered into or signed by the NOIDA Authority for hiring the services of a registered contractor/supplier to provide workforce/manpower. In the said supplementary, though it is stated that the NOIDA does not maintain record of any individual as it does not have the muster roll or contract or any other record available with it, but the agreement to engage a valid contractor to hire the services of outsourced agency has not been brought on record. It is reiterated therein that the onus is on the petitioners to prove their engagement with NOIDA and in absence of an established claim, benefit of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 cannot be given to them.

¶41

Before proceeding further, at this stage, it would be relevant to note that the stand of NOIDA that the daily wage employees/drivers had been engaged through a registered contractor and that they being engaged through hired contractors, the petitioners are not entitled to seek regularisation is belied by their own stand in the supplementary counter affidavit.

¶42

The work orders brought on record as Annexure-'CA-1' cannot be treated as the proof of the fact of hiring of a valid contractor. Moreover, the work

¶43

¶44

orders are of the year 2016-17, 2018 and 2019, whereas the petitioners specifically claim to have been appointed as early as in the year 1988-89 and 1991-1997, 2000-2008. The denial to the averments regarding the working of the petitioners made in paragraph-'6' of the supplementary affidavit is with the assertion that the petitioners are neither on the muster roll nor there is any record with NOIDA of their engagement. The said stand of the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA in the counter affidavit cannot be found in the Order of rejection of representation of the petitioners, under challenge in the present petition. It is settled principle of law that the validity of the order impugned in a writ petition has to be tested from the language of the order itself. Any statement in the counter affidavit would be only an afterthought and cannot be made basis to test the correctness of the order challenged by the petitioners. [Reference Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner and others (1978) 1 SCC 405].

¶45

It is further pertinent to note that by means of the order dated 22.10.2019, this Court had directed the counsel for NOIDA Authority to produce a valid contract of engagement of a contractor or outsourced agency for supply of manpower in NOIDA. No document or contract has been produced before the Court to substantiate the said fact.

¶46

Mere denial of engagement of the petitioners or the statement of engagement of a contractor for supply of manpower/driver etc., on the part of the employer is not sufficient. It cannot be assumed by the Court that the petitioners who claim to have been appointed and working on the post of driver for the last about four decades on daily wages, were engaged through the contractor(s). The question of onus upon the petitioners to prove their nature of engagement as daily wage employees in NOIDA would have arisen, had a valid contract been produced by Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA to show it had hired a contractor/supplier to supply the daily wage employees/drivers in exigencies. The best evidence which was a valid contract of hiring a

¶47

¶48

contractor/supplier to provide manpower, being in possession of the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority, he was under obligation to produce the same before the Court. For non-production of the best evidence in possession of the employer, an adverse inference has to be drawn against it. It is, thus, apparent that the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA has not come out with true and correct facts before this Court. Moreover, the order impugned does not contain the reason or statement made in the counter affidavit that the record of engagement/working of the petitioners is not available with the NOIDA.

¶49

Further, in order to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has been enforced w.e.f 7.9.1970, (the date of its publication in the Gazette of India). It is held by the Apex Court in Sarva Shramik Sangh vs Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd., reported in ( 2003) 10 SCC 455 that the Contract Labour Act is a self-contained legislation aimed at regulation and abolition of Contract labour. The “establishment” as defined in Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Contract Labour Act means any office or department of the Government or a local Authority. It is observed in Reserve Bank of India and another vs State reported in (2008) 12 SCC 498 that a bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes the position clear that the Act applies to an establishment which is either an office or department of the Government or local Authority.

¶50

The 'Contract Labour' as defined in Section 2(1)(b) of the Act is a workman deemed to be employed as “contract labour” in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the Principal employer.

¶51

The “contractor” defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result

¶52

¶53

for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacturing to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.

¶54

“Principal employer” as defined Section 2(1)(g)(i) of the Act, in relation to any office or department of the Government or the local Authority, is the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local Authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf.

¶55

Section 7 of the Act cast an obligation on every Principal employer of an establishment to which the Act applies, to make an application for registration of the establishment before the registering officer in the prescribed manner. If the application for registration is found complete in all respects, the registering officer has to register and issue a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed.

¶56

Section 9 provides consequences of non-registration of an establishment required to be registered under Section 7 and states that no Principal employer of such an establishment shall employ contract labour after the expiry of the period provided in the Act for in such registration.

¶57

Section 12 cast obligation upon the contractor to get a license under subsection (1) of Section 12 to undertake or execute any work through contract labour. The license issued under sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall provide the conditions including, in particular, the conditions as to hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour, as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the Rules.

¶58

Every application for grant of license under sub-section (1) of Section 12 has to be made in the prescribed format giving particulars regarding the location of the establishment, the nature of process, operation or work for which contract labour is to be employed and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Under section 13(1), such license shall be valid for the

¶59

¶60

period specified therein and may be renewed from time to time for such period on payment of such fees and on such conditions as may be prescribed (reference Section 13(3)).

¶61

Chapter V of the Contract Labour Act' 1970 deals with the provisions relating to Welfare and Health of the Contract Labour to be made in an establishment. Section 21 provides for the responsibilities of the contractor and the liability of the Principal employer in the matter of payment of wages to each worker employed by him as 'contract labour'. The said provision is reproduced as under:-

¶62

Responsibility for payment of wages.- (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.

¶63

(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶64

(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer.

¶65

(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.

¶66

Rule 17(1) of the U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 framed under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Contract Labour Act' 1970 deals with the manner of making an application for registration of establishment under Section 7(1) of the Act. Rule 74 cast obligation upon the Principal employer to maintain a register of contractor in Form XII in respect of each registered establishment. Rule 75, on the other hand, cast obligation on every contractor to maintain register in Form XIII in respect of each registered establishment where he employs Contract Labour. Rule 76 provides that every contractor shall issue an employment card in Form XIV to each worker within three days of the employment of the worker and such card shall be maintained up to date with the changes

¶67

¶68

in particulars, if needed.

¶69

Rule 78(1) provides that in respect of establishments which are governed by the Payment of Wages Act or the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules made thereunder, the contractor as employer is required to maintain registers such as a muster roll, register of wages, deductions, overtime, fines and advances etc. In respect of the establishment not covered under sub-rule (1), of Rule 78, sub-rule (2) provides that a muster-roll register and register of wages in Form XVI and Form XVII; respectively, has to be maintained by a Contractor. Rule 80 provides that all registers and records to be maintained under the Act and the Rules shall be completed and up to date and shall be kept at the office or the nearest convenient building within the precincts of the workplace. Every such register and record shall be preserved in original and shall be produced on demand before the Inspector or any Authority under the Act or any person or authorities in that behalf appointed by the State Government.

¶70

Thus, a conjoint and exhaustive reading of the provisions of the Contract Labour Act and the Rules made thereunder goes to show that the engagement of 'Contract Labour' in an establishment covered by the Contract Labour Act is regulated under Act, which is a complete code in itself. The Contract labour cannot be engaged at the whims and fancies of the employer/Head of the establishment rather record regarding engagement of the contract labour has to be maintained by the Principal employer by maintaining register of the Contractors engaged by it to provide such labour or work force. The Principal employer has to supervise payment of wages made by the contractor to each contract labour. Adequate checks and balances have been provided in the Contract Labour Act to ensure that no person/Labour is exploited at the hands of the employer. At the same time the works of establishment do not suffer for shortage of manpower. Considering the historical perspective of the Contract Labour System, it is noticed by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India ltd and others vs National Union Waterfront Workers

¶71

¶72

and others reported in ( 2001) 7 SCC 1 that the CLRA Act was enacted by the Parliament to deal with the abuses of the Contract Labour System. The Act has adopted two measures to curb the abuses of employment of Contract Labour:-

¶73

(i) first is to regulate the employment of contract labour suitably.

¶74

(ii)the second is to abolish it in certain circumstance.

¶75

In the present case, the Court is dealing with the first measure of Regulation of Employment of Contract Labour of the CLRA. Under the scheme of the Act, it is prescribed that if the contractor fails to pay the wages to the Contract Labour, the Principal employer has to pay the full wages or unpaid wages, as the case may be, to the Contract Labour and a right is conferred on him/it to recover the same from the amount payable to the Contractor. Chapter VI of CLRA Act prescribes offences and lays down the procedure for prosecution of the offenders.

¶76

It is further observed in the Steel Authority of India ltd (supra) that the CLRA Act applies to every establishment and every contractor of the specified description, except the establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature are performed are excluded from the purview of the Act.

¶77

In the light of the statutory liability imposed on the Principal employer of the establishment, which includes the Government Office or the local Authority, it cannot be said nor can it be accepted that NOIDA Authority do not maintain the record of the engagement of the Contractor(s) to provide manpower. The plea of the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits that the petitioners cannot stand in the Court of law as they did not produce any record of their engagement is, therefore, not acceptable.

¶78

Moreover, the averments in the order impugned are admission of the fact of engagement of the petitioners and their working in the NOIDA Authority. Only dispute raised therein is with regard to the manner of their engagement. The assertion of the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA

¶79

¶80

in the order impugned that the petitioners were engaged through a Contractor in view of the exigencies of work is not substantiated by production of any cogent material before the Court. Inspite of sufficient time being granted, non-production of a valid contract for engagement of the Contractor(s) or service provider(s) or supplier(s) for supply of manpower itself demolish the case of the respondent NOIDA regarding the nature of engagement of the petitioners.

¶81

A further perusal of the scheme of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 in the matter of regularization of services of daily wagers/work charge and contractual employees in an establishment namely the Government Department, local bodies, local Self Government/Corporation, Development Authority and District Panchayats shows that the following conditions for consideration of the claim of regularization are to be fulfilled:-

¶82

(i) the employee concerned must have been engaged on or before 31.12.2001 and must be working as daily wage, work charge or contract basis in the establishment in the same position as on the date of promulgation of the Government order, i.e. 24.2.2016.

¶83

(ii) he must possess minimum eligibility qualification for appointment to the post-in-question.

¶84

(iii) the vacancy must exist in the establishment; and in case of absence of vacancies requisite supernumerary post has to be created under the conditions as provided in Clause1(1)(2)(3) of the said Government Order.

¶85

It is further categorically provided in the Government order dated 24.2.2016 that the provision contained therein would be applicable till necessary amendments are made in the existing Regulations relating to the regularization of the employees of the Government department, local bodies etc. Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working On Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract In Government Departments On Group "C" And Group

¶86

¶87

"D" Posts (Outside The Purview Of The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016 (in short ' Regularization Rules 2016'), in the same line has been enforced with effect from 12.9.2016.

¶88

The petitioners herein have approached this Court on an earlier occasion with the specific prayer for consideration of their claims for regularization within the purview of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 (replaced by the Regularization Rules, 2016). The Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1403 of 2005 categorically observed that the stand of the employer NOIDA that the petitioners/appellants were contractual employees and they were engaged through some contractor was not substantiated by bringing any relevant material on record. Noticing that a conscious decision had been taken by the State Government to provide regular appointment to all daily wagers/contractual/work charge employees working in the Government Establishments or local authorities, it was directed that the NOIDA Authority was under obligation to consider the claim of regularization of the appellants in the light of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016. It is not disputed that the petitioners herein were party to the above proceedings wherein the Special Appellate Court had issued directions to the respondent to consider the claim of regularization of the Daily Wage/Work charge/Contractual Employees, irrespective of the fact that they were party in the Special Appeal or not. It is admitted in the present proceeding that a comprehensive representation pressing their claim for regularization under the scheme of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 was filed by the petitioners herein and the same was rejected vide order impugned dated 8.11.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA. It is further noteworthy that existence or absence of none of the qualifying conditions of regularization of a daily wager/work charge/contract employee in the establishment (NOIDA) as against the existing vacancy has been considered by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA. While

¶89

¶90

rejecting their representation, the claim of the petitioners seeking for regularization has been brushed aside solely on the ground that they were engaged for intermittent work through a Contractor. The period of engagement of the representationists/petitioners herein has not been considered in the order impugned nor any record of their engagement has been produced before the Court alongwith the counter affidavit filed in the present proceeding. This Court is, therefore, constrained to form an opinion that the order impugned dated 8.11.2017 is a result of nonapplication of mind by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.

¶91

The rejection of claim for regularization of the petitioners herein is not within the purview of the Regularization Rules' 2016 or the Government order dated 24.2.2016.

¶92

For the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 8.11.2017 passed by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

¶93

It is further provided that the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA, Ghaziabad, U.P shall consider the claim of the petitioners afresh for regularization keeping in view of the observations made hereinabove, strictly in the light of the qualifying conditions of the Government Order dated 24.2.2016 or the Regularization Rules' 2016, as on the date of submission of their representation rejected vide order dated 8.11.2017.

¶94

As to the other qualifying conditions under the Government Order/Regularisation Rules such as cut off date, qualification etc., the same would have to be considered by the competent Authority i.e. Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA considering the facts of individual case of each petitioner herein.

¶95

In any case, a fresh, reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, shall be passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order keeping in view of all the observations made hereinabove specifically that the petitioners cannot be treated as Contract Labour hired

¶96

¶97

through registered Contractor/Supplier/Service Provider in absence of a valid Contract for such services, in accordance with the scheme of CLRA Act and that deviation from the procedure prescribed therein is not permitted, for the NOIDA being a local Authority falling within the purview of the Act' 1970.

¶98

Subject to the observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date : 4.2.2020 Harshita

Ramesh Chandra Nagar and 18 Others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Nagar and 18 Others v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Narayan Yadav Vs State Bank of India Thru Its M.D. and Others

Smt. Suman Kushwaha and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amir Hasan and 25 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State Bank of India Thru Regional Manager and Others

Gulab Chandra Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Prafull Saraswat Vs Sri Mahesh Singh and 18 Others