Allowed

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Jagat Ram and Others

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2016WP/4201/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Labour Court 's order directing a workman's retrospective regularization. The Court held that regularization claims are prospective only and that disputes granting civil posts fall within Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction under Article 323 A.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Labour Court directing retrospective regularization was set aside; workman's regularization remains valid prospectively from 13-8-08.

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs Jagat Ram and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR

¶2

LJ /-f2-0\ WRITPETITIOI^NO, /2006

¶3

PETITIONER (S)

¶4

State of Chattisgarh , Through Secretary Water Resources Department Mantralay Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

/4-^
/ ^.''
..•" ..••"'"-(•••' rv'' -••' ..-
io.-<^y/
^^•^
^-^ny 2.
./^.1^•^y
^yy'
€^/''^y'

¶6

Executive Engineer^ Water Resources Department Chuikhadan

¶7

District: Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

~''i:'
/e/ /yv!!^ .,,--"-"";"^'°"'
'rUL..-,.:^"'i^A.y^n' ,
l^u'% r^t7C^_ vl ^<"'' ••;'..'''

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

l.y-'' JagatRam ^

¶12

S/o Late Thandar, Choukidar Near Office of Water Resources Department Village: Ghinari, Post Chuikhada

¶13

District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶14

Pt»siding Officer/' Labour Court Rajnandgaon (C.G.\

¶15

¶16

APPLICATION UNDERARTICLE2270F THECONSTITUTIONOFINDIA

-iq

AFR

HIGHCOURT^F CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶21

WP^ No. 4201 of 2006

¶22

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

-—Petitioner

Versus

Jagat Ram And Others

-—Respondent

([-

For Petitioners-State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA fbr the State For Respondent No.1 ShriTKTiwari, Advocate

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar IVIishra

¶30

Order Qn Board^

¶31

05/02/2016

¶32

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Water Resources Department of State of Chhattisgarh and the Executive Engineer of the said department at Chhuikhadan have assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon directing the respondent workman's regularization from 21-8-2000 along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and seniority.

¶33

At fhe outset, learned State counsel would submit that by order dated 13-8-08, passed by the Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godavari Kachar, Water Resources Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, respondent workman has been regularized in the services, therefore, at present his status is that of a regular employee.

¶34

Respondent workman preferred statement of claim before the Labour Court

¶35

¶36

.^^-

¶37

stating that he is working as daily wage watchman from the year 1978, however, his services have not been regularized even though persons junior to him, who were subsequently engaged on daily wages have been regularized. It was thus claimed that he is entitled for regularization from 21-8-2000.

¶38

it was the contention of the petitioner before the Labour Court that other persons were regularized because they belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category and post was available in that category, whereas no post was lying vacant in the establishment where the petitioner was working, nor any personjuhiprto him working in the said establishment has ever been regularized.

¶39

It is to be seen that the^wonkman was never disengaged from the services and was continuously working as daily wage watchman, therefore, in the guise of making a claimfcr peiTnahent classification, the Labour Court could not have entertained the claim for regularization in the government service.

¶40

In needs mention that when the workman moved before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh on 26-5-2000 raising the industrial disputefor being referred to the Labour Court, the subject matter was falling withjn the jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh StateAdministrative Tribunal because the consequence of the order passed by the Labour Court was granting employment to the workman to hold a civil post. Article 323 A of the Constitution of India was introduced for establishment of Administrative Tribunals and under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act, 1985') any matter for which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, no other Court was authorized to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, claim for regularization to be a regular Government servant waswithin the

¶41

:.,--»""-"Stei.

¶42

'€""% "& ^-,. "•i»ts.Cr ^'-.Fii£s'^' .y,/

¶43

¶44

exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals constituted under Article 323 A of the Constitution of India and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Even if, no such objection appears to have taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the issue concerning inherent lack of jurisdiction in view of the constitutional provision read with Section 28 of the Act, 1985, this Court is entitled to consider the purely legal issue so as to have control and superintendence over the proceedings of any Court or Tribunalsub-ordinate to the High Court. If an order is passed wholly without jurisdiction, it is the duty of the writ Court to keep the subordinate Court or Tribunal within its bounds.

¶45

Even otherwise, claim for ^regularization cannot be granted with retrospective effect nor any daily wager can claim to be regularly appointed from any particular dat®unless??sychdate is fixed by the Government for implementation of any schgmejfor regylarization.

¶46

In the matter of Minketan Danseha & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others', this Court has held thus in para 5 to 8:-

¶47

"5. The relief claimed inthe writ petition cannot be granted and this writ petition cannot be entertained for the reason that the order of regularization takes effect from the date when it is passed and a daily wager cannot claim regularization from a retrospective date. This is because on the date when the Petitioners claimed to be regularizad, posts may not be available.

¶48

In the matter of Vijay K. Dhand and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2004) 13 SCC 707, the hlon'ble Supreme Court has held that claim for regularization from the date of initial appointment cannot be ordered being contrary to government instructions. In the present case, the government has not fixed any cut-off date, therefore, the Petitioners are not entitied to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment in the absence of any specific direction by the State Government fixing a particular

¶49

1WPS No. 7553 of 201 1, decided on 14/05/2015

¶50

<^0

¶51

date of regularization.

¶52

]n the matter of Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Swaran Singh, (2005) 13 SCC 246, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the workman appointed on ad hoc basis in 1976 being regularized in 1982 is not entitled to be regularized w.e.f. earlier date.

¶53

In the matter of Union of India and others Vs. Sheela Rani, (2007) 15 SCC 230, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as chances of their upsetting the seniorities of regular appointees cannot be overlooked. In the case before the Supreme Court, the concerned employee was engaged as casual worker on 17/11/1982 and was regularized w.e.f. 26/09/2001 and her claim for regularization frpmthe date of initial appointment was rejected bythe 1-fori'ble Supreme Court."

¶54

For the foregoing, the FespQndeht's Gjaim before the Labour Court was not

¶55

maintainable and the LabouF Courtjwrongly entertained and adjudicated the reference. Accordingly, the ympugned order/award is set aside, however, since the workman hasalready Beeri regularized by the order dated 13-8-08 his status as a regular emplpyee on and from 13-8-08 would remain intact and the order passed in this writ petition would not affect the said order of regularization.

¶56

lO.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶57

Sdll-

¶58

Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶59

ashu

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Jagat Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. v. Jagat Ram and Others

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

Himanshu Namdeo and Ors. Vs Dena Bank and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Prakash Chand Sahu

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Dasru Ram Patel

Shantanu Basu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Manjeet Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manrakhan Markam Vs Ganesh Shankar Mishra