A three-judgment casual labourer Writ Petition challenging CAT's rejection of regularization claims against BSNL. The Court dismissed the petition due to lack of evidence proving employment status as of the statutory cutoff date under the 2000 Circular.
Writ petition stands rejected; no relief granted to the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7429-DB WP No.106116 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.106116 OF 2019 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
K M SOMASHEKAR
Digitally signed by K MSOMASHEKAR Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2024.06.12 10:47:49 +0530
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARAVI, CGSC FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLED 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU, IN O.A.NO.170/00885/2016 DATED 17TH APRIL 2018 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE O.A. BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners, claiming to be casual labourers in respondent-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), are before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 17.04.2018 in Original Application No.170/00885/2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, ‘the CAT’) rejecting the petitioners’ prayer to quash the orders at AnnexuresA4 to A8 by which the petitioners’ claim for regularization and also to extend the benefit of temporary status in terms of 1989 Scheme and Circular dated 29.09.2000 is rejected.
approached the CAT earlier and the CAT, by its order dated 18.04.2013 disposed of the applications directing consideration of the petitioners’ claim. Respondent-BSNL, by orders dated 23.09.2013, rejected the request of the petitioners. The said orders were again challenged by the petitioners in O.A. Nos.373 to 378 of 2014 before the CAT.
The CAT, again, by order dated 22.06.2015, remanded the matter to the authority for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made therein. Against the said order, respondents-authorities filed W.P. Nos.42511-42516 of 2015 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, and this Court, by order dated 30.03.2016 issued modified direction to the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners. Again, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners by orders dated 21.07.2016. The said rejection was the subject matter before the CAT in the present original application i.e., O.A. No.170/0085/2016. The CAT, under the impugned order dated 17.04.2018, again rejected the
claim of the petitioners. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
respondents No.1, 2 and 4 would support the order passed by the CAT and would submit that no documents whatsoever are furnished in support of the petitioners’ claim and hence, the CAT is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Learned CGSC would further submit that a Special Committee was constituted to go into the claim of the petitioner, and on going through the records the Tribunal was of the opinion that, it did not find any justifiable ground to arrive at any positive conclusions about the claims of the applicants of having working as casual workers and their fulfilling all the stipulation so as to justify their eligibility for coming under the purview of the circular of 29.9.2000 for conferment of temporary status followed by regularization. Thus, the learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7429-DB WP No.106116 of 2019
Whether the impugned order passed by
the CAT requires interference?
(a) Petitioners claim that they are working as casual labourers in respondent-BSNL. Their prayers before the CAT at prayer a) was to quash the orders at Annexures-A4 to A8; and at prayer b) it was for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicants forthwith and to extend the benefit of temporary status of a regular mazdoor. From the prayer made before the CAT it is clear that, as on the date of filing the original application before the CAT and the writ petition before this Court, the petitioners were not working in the respondents-BSNL. No material whatsoever is placed on record to establish that the petitioners were working as casual labourers in BSNL. To find out and to examine the request of the petitioners, the respondents-BSNL had constituted a Special Committee and, on going through the records the Tribunal
was of the opinion that it did not find any justifiable ground to arrive at any positive conclusions about the claims of the applicants of having working as casual workers and their fulfilling all the stipulation so as to justify their eligibility for coming under the purview of the circular of 29.9.2000 for conferment of temporary status followed by regularization, as could be found from paragraph 22 of the impugned order dated 17.04.2018. Circular dated 29.09.2000 is extracted in the impugned order. A perusal of the said Circular would indicate that, the Circular issued regularising the casual labourers would be applicable to the those eligible casual labourers who were granted temporary status upto 01.08.1998. Admittedly, the petitioners have not placed on record either in this writ petition or before the authorities to establish that they were granted temporary status as on 01.08.1998 or establish that they were working as casual labourers as on 01.08.1998. The CAT has rightly come to the conclusion that the documents produced by the petitioners are not sufficient enough to establish their
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7429-DB WP No.106116 of 2019
claim for having fulfilled the stipulations under the Scheme of regularization of casual labourers and also stipulation prescribed under the Circular dated 29.09.2000. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KMS LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting the petitioners' claim for regularization of casual labourers requires judicial interference?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. DAYA S/O FAKIRAPPA GAMANGATTI
SRI. SHIVANAND S/O SABANNA TIMMANAYATI
SRI. SANJAY P. SAMBRANI
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM KARNATAKA TELECOM CIRCLE
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM
S G PANDIT
G BASAVARAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
