This court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting regularization claims for contract labours. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove ten years of service required by precedent. Petitioner lacked standing to claim for other labours. Regularization prayed for was unworkable.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6539 of 2000
=========================================================== Sanjay Kumar son of Late Maheshwar Mishra, resident of village Bishunpur Sumer, P.S.Kanti, District Muzaffarpur
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Subhash Singh, Advocate Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha-3, Advocate Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr.Sanjay Prakash Verma, AC to GA 1 For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate Mr.Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-07-2015 ----------------
Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are unanimous in their submissions that the present writ petition is not required to be heard along with connected writ petitions vide CWJC No.808 of 1997, CWJC No. 11661 of 1999, CWJC No.8532 of 1999 and CWJC No. 14320 of 2003, as the facts involved in those cases are different from the facts involved in the present matter.
3. In view of the above submissions, this writ petition is segregated from the batch of other writ petitions mentioned above, and now this writ petition is being heard and decided separately.
4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under
Patna High Court CWJC No.6539 of 2000 dt.24-07-2015
2/3
Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order/communication dated 24.08.1999 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner and 46 other contract labours for their regularization at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti has been rejected on the ground that their engagement as contract labours (Theka Mazdoors) was illegal and in violation of the order dated 20th October, 1987 of the State Government. The petitioner has further prayed for regularization of his service as also of other contract labours under regular establishment, after abolishing contract labour system at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti.
5. Though the present writ petition has been filed by a private individual but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the representation for regularization was filed on behalf of 47 contract labours engaged at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti, which has been rejected by the impugned order/communication dated 24.08.21999 (Annexure-5), therefore, this writ petition be treated to have been filed on behalf of all the 47 contract labours. In reply to the specific query, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to show any document whereby he has been authorized by other 46 remaining contract labours to file the present petition. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an Union of the contract labours, rather he is a private individual. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to agitate the claims of the remaining 46 contract labours. Hence, the present writ petition is confined only with respect to the petitioner alone.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as contract labour and has
Patna High Court CWJC No.6539 of 2000 dt.24-07-2015
3/3
worked for more than ten years. Therefore, according to him, he is entitled for regularization. However, in response to the query made by this Court, he has not been able to show the date of engagement of the petitioner as contract labour and till which date he was allowed to work. In fact, the statement to that effect is completely missing in the whole writ petition and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and submitted that, in fact, the petitioner was never engaged even as contract labour by the respondents. According to him, the engagement of the petitioner as contract labour was by some contractor, which was contrary to the Government order issued in 1987.
8. Now, the law has been settled by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] with respect to regularization of daily wagers/ad hoc employees and/or contract labours. In view of the principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred to above, particularly in paragraph 43, and the fact that there is no pleading that the petitioner had remained in service for more than ten years, the claim of regularization of the petitioner is completely misconceived, and cannot be countenanced.
9. In the result, the writ petition has to fail and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Tahir/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of his service as a contract labour despite lack of proof of ten years of continuous service.
Whether a private individual can file a writ petition on behalf of 46 other contract labours for their regularization.
Whether the representation for regularization of contract labours at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma DeviExplained¶8
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Kumar
The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Energy, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Labour, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Deputy Secretary, Dept. of Labour, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Secretary, Patna
The Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
