Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Surinder Pal & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2012LPA/1618/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order directing regularization of casual laborers with 14 years of service. The court held the order was consistent with Supreme Court precedents in Vartak Labour Union and Uma Devi.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; High Court order maintaining regularization scheme upheld.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Surinder… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

LPA No. 1618 OF 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 1618 OF 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January, 18, 2012

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

…Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Surinder Pal and others

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: None for the appellant.

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶15

The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 04.05.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondents who were working for the last more than 14 years were entitled to benefit of any scheme to be framed for regularization and the appellants have been restrained from replacing the writ petitioner-respondents by appointing new incumbents on temporary basis. In that regard reliance has been placed on the observation made by Hon'ble

¶16

the Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2011) 4 SCC 200. While allowing the appeal of the Union of India against the judgment of the High

¶17

-2-

¶18

LPA No. 1618 OF 2011 (O&M)

¶19

Court of Gauhati in which directions were issued to regularize the services of Casual Paid Labourers like the writ petitionerrespondents, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:

¶20

“21.Before parting with the case, we are constrained to observe that the conduct of the appellants in engaging casual workers for a period of less than six months, and giving them artificial breaks so as to ensure that they do not become eligible for permanent status, as evidenced from the additional affidavit dated 23rd April, 2010 does not behove the Union of India and its instrumentalities, which are supposed to be model employers. With anguish, we extract the relevant paragraph of the said affidavit:-

¶21

“Relying upon the provisions contained in Paragraph 501 to 518 of the Regulation, it was contended that the casual labourers are mustered on daily or monthly basis. If on monthly rates, the period of engagement shall be for a minimum period of six months. It is a fact that large number of casual labourers have worked with Project Vartak for number of years but their period of engagement at no stage has existed more than six months at a time. Their services are terminated before completion of six months and as per requirement they are recruited afresh by publishing Part II order by Mustering Unit. Due to the fact that they have not been in continuous engagement for more than six months they do not get the status of permanent employee and accordingly as per Paragraph 503 of the Regulation referred to above, the casual personnel are not eligible for any other privileges for continued employment under the Government.”

¶22

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where members of the respondent

¶23

LPA No. 1618 OF 2011 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

Union have been employed in terms of the Regulations and have been consistently engaged in service for the past thirty to forty years, of course with short breaks, we feel, the Union of India would consider enacting an appropriate regulation/ scheme for absorption and regularization of the services of the casual workers engaged by BRO for execution of its on-going projects.

¶26

In the final analysis, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders are set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.”

¶27

A perusal of the aforesaid directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court would show that the appellant was required to formulate a scheme in respect of such Casual Paid Labourers who have rendered long years of service as such. In the present appeal also the writ petitioner-respondents have also rendered long service more than 14 years and the learned Single Judge has correctly held that such a Scheme framed in terms of the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vartak Labour Union (Supra) would also be applicable to the facts of the case in hand.

¶28

The learned Single Judge has also directed that the services of the writ petitioner-respondents may not be terminated by replacing them by similar temporary arrangement. However, it has been left open to the appellants to make appointment on regular basis in accordance with the established procedure and in consonance with Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution.

¶29

Having perused the grounds of the appeal and the

¶30

LPA No. 1618 OF 2011 (O&M) -4-

¶31

judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for. Even in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has directed that in the cases where employees have worked for more than 10 years, the employer is under obligation to frame a scheme for their regularization. Accordingly, we find that the directions are not against the view expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). No exception is provided for admission of the appeal.

¶32

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶33

Keeping in view the dismissal of appeal on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of delay of 35 days in filing of the instant appeal.

¶34

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶35

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶36

January 18, 2012 Atul

Union of India & Ors. v. Surinder Pal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Surinder Pal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commi. of Central Excise Vs M/S Associated Strips Ltd.

Ashish Sharma and Others Vs Bank of India and Another

Sardar Ali Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. NO.54 through Its Vice President Sr. K. Srikishan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Yanshika Impex Vs State of Punjab and Another

Parmala Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.