AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The applicants in O.A.No.1706 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘the Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P12 order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
Going by the averments in the original application, the applicants are agricultural labourers and natives of Kottukkal village. They have worked for daily wages in the 4th respondent farm since 2013 based on a selection process conducted by the 3rd respondent Kollam District Panchayat on assurance of maximum labour to each applicant on daily wages during the tenure. These plans were announced through newspapers in the pretext of promoting food policy and maximum rural employment in the district through different crop cultivation in the agricultural farms. But the above assurance remained in the news only and the very object of the plans was defeated due to the nonutilisation of available farms and land under the State, and similarly, the majority of the 800 acres of land of the 4th respondent's entire farm area remained as wild forest for years.
Meanwhile, some other applicants approached the Tribunal, and the Tribunal Vide Annexure A2 order dated 02.12.2016 in O.A.No.782 of 2016, directed to fill up the future vacancies of casual laborers in the farms by selection through the Employment Exchange. Therefore, Vide Annexure A3 Government order dated 13.12.2017, respondents 1 and 2 restricted such regularization and directed to conduct selection of temporary labourers through the Employment Exchange. But, vide para 4(iii) of Annexure A3 order, it has been stipulated that those who have completed 30 days, as daily wage labourer in any farm under the Government farms from 19.12.2008 to 02.12.2016, prior to Annexure A2 order shall be recognized as agricultural casual labourers and they will be allowed to continue in the farm as casual labourers again. However, without allotting sufficient labour to the applicants in the existing team appointed for a period of 3 years, now respondents 1 to 4 are trying to exclude the applicants under the pretext of appointing labourers through Employment Exchange and started import labourers from other farms also due to bad politics.
The applicants formed an action council and protested against this and submitted several representations, including Annexure A5 representation dated 19.02.2018, before the concerned authorities. But the applicants have been denied employment from 2017. Even though the applicants were selected through a skill test of digging 20 -21 pits around the coconut tree in a day, they managed to get an average of 50 days work in the term of 3 years. During the term, each applicant managed to get around 50 days only. Aggrieved by this, the applicants filed Annexure A6 Original Application No.506 of 2018 before the Tribunal. Though, by Annexure A7 order dated 22.05.2018 the Tribunal directed to consider the applicants, but the 1st respondent refused to consider the applicants on the pretext that the applicants are appointed by the 3rd respondent on a contract basis and therefore not able to be considered as daily wage employees. This is highly illegal and liable to be interfered with by the Tribunal. With these pleadings, the applicants approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1706 of 2018 invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
“i)To direct respondents 1 to 4 to deploy the applicants to continue as casual and daily wage labourers in the 4th respondent farm in the light of para 4(iii) of Annexure A3 Government order forthwith in the interest of justice;
ii) To direct the respondents to quash Annexure A8 order dated 28.09.2018 based on the facts and circumstances of the subject matter and according to law and natural justice.”
In the original application, on behalf of the 1st respondent, a reply statement dated 04.02.2019 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for. It is contended in that reply statement that the applicants were engaged on a contract basis as part of the project approved under ‘Janakeeyasoothranam’.
Paragraphs 6 to 16 of that reply statement read thus:
“6.The applicants were engaged on contract basis as a part of a project approved under Janakeeyasoothranam. The Honourable Tribunal in its order dated 02.12.2016 in O.A.No.782 of 2016 has directed that the appointment of daily, casual and permanent labourers in all the farms under the Department of Agriculture shall be made through the Employment Exchange.
7.In compliance of the order dated 02.12.2016 of the Honourable Tribunal in O.A.No.782 of 2016, Government have issued order No.51/2017/Agri dated 03.04.2017. It has been stated in the order that the appointment daily, casual and permanent labourers in all the farms shall be made through the local employment exchange where the farm situates. A true copy of the order No.51/2017/Agri dated 03.04.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a).
8.Government Order No.161/2017/Agri dated 13.12.2017 is not the compliance order in O.A.No.782 of 2016 Government Order No.51/2017/Agri dated 03.04.2017 is the compliance order in O.A.No.782 of 2016. Government order 161/2017/Agri dated 13.12.2017 is related to the permanancy of the existing casual labourers and the appointment of eligible daily wages labourers, who have completed 30 days work from 19.02.2008 to 01.12.2016 eligible to be appointed as casual abourers.
9.Government order No.161/2017/Agri dated 13.12.2017 is not applicable to the applicants as they were engaged on contract basis for a particular period as a part of the project under Janakeeyasoothranam and they are not eligible to be recognised as casual labourers.
10.In the case of the appointment of labourers in the farms there are specific Government orders and action can be taken only based on these orders. As per Government order 161/2017/Agri dated 13.12.2007 those daily waged labourers who had been engaged for minimum of 30 days between 19.12.2008 to 01.12.2016 are eligible to be recognised as Casual Labourers. It has also been stated that at there are no eligible casual labourers to be made permanent, such vacancies of the permanent labourers can be filled through the Employment Exchange by appointing casual labourers. The applicants are not eligible to be recognised as casual labourers as there are 87 vacancies of the permanent labourers in the farm and 30 vacancies has been reported to the Employment Exchange and the interview has been interrupted by some local people including the applicants in this case.
11.As per the order of the Honourable Tribunal, the Government conducted a personal hearing and issued an order by rejecting the request of the applicants to recognise them as casual labourers based on the ground that the applicants have been engaged on contract basis for a particular period as part of the project under Janakeeyasoothranam. As per Government order 161/2017/Agri dated 13.12.2007 only those daily waged labourers who had been engaged for a minimum of 30 days between 19.12.2008 to 01.12.2016 are eligible to be recognised as casual labourers.
12.The applicants were engaged on contract basis as a part of a project of the District Panchayath and they were paid wages from the fund allotted for the project. As per the existing orders the labourers engaged on contract basis are not eligible to be recognised as casual labourers. Government have considered the representation of the applicants and found that the applicants are ineligible to be considered for the post of casual labourers in the Farm and hence the request was rejected vide GO(Rt)No.879/2018/Agri dated 23.08.2018.
13.As per the order of the Honourable Tribunal, the 1st respondent conducted a personal hearing and issued an order by rejecting the request of the applicants to recognise them as casual labourers based on the ground that the applicants have been engaged on contract basis for a particular period as part of the project under Janakeeyasoothranam. As per Government order 161/2017/Agri dated 13.12.2007, only those daily waged labourers who had been engaged for a minimum of 30 days between 19.12.2008 to 01.12.2016 are eligible to be recognised as casual labourers.
14.The applicants were engaged on contract basis as a part of a project of the District Panchayath and they were paid wages from the fund allotted for the project. As per the existing orders the labourers engaged on contract basis are not eligible to be recognised as casual labourers. 15. Regarding the grounds raised by the applicants it is submitted that the applicants were engaged on contract basis for a particular period as a part of the project. There were specific orders for the appointment of the labourers in the farms and the respondents can take action only based on this.
16.As per the existing orders the daily waged labourers who had been engaged for a minimum of 30 days between 19.12.2008 to 01.12.2016 are eligible to be recognised as casual labourers. It has also been stipulated that future vacancies can be filled up only through the Employment Exchange. Since the applicants were engaged on contract basis they are not eligible to be recognised as casual labourers based on the existing orders. And as per the order of the 1st respondent action has been initiated to appoint the casual labourers through the Employment Exchange.”
Similarly, in the original application, 2nd respondent filed Ext.P3 statement dated 30.06.2023, and the 3rd respondent filed Ext.P4 reply statement dated 07.08.2019, producing therewith Annexures R3(a) to R3(c) documents and also Ext.P5 additional reply statement dated 26.10.2019, producing therewith Annexures R3(d) to R3(l) documents, opposing the reliefs sought for. To those reply statements, the applicants filed Exts.P6 to P7 rejoinders dated 20.03.2018, and Ext.P8 rejoinder dated 01.08.2022. Along with Ext.P10 miscellaneous application bearing M.A.No.2434 of 2022, the applicants produced Annexures A9 to A12 documents. Thereafter, along with Ext.P11 memorandum dated 24.07.2024, the learned Government Pleader produced some documents regarding the period of employment of the applicants and their payment details.
After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, by the impugned Ext.P12 order dated 24.07.2024, the Tribunal dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 13 to 17 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:
“13.The learned Counsel for the applicant Adv. Laila has advanced the argument that no distinction could be drawn between the applicants, who were appointed pursuant to Annexure A11 notice and other employees to whom the benefit of Annexure A3 is now extended. The counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants squarely fall within Section 2(k) of the Kerala Casual, Temporary and Badli Workers (Wages) Act, 1989 and they are to be treated as daily wage workers. It is also argued by the counsel that the applicants are all natives of the place, where the Farm is situated and they had been involved in all activities of the Farm for a very long time. In catastrophe, such as Forest fire, the applicants had played a major role to protect the farm and they had every right to be regularised in the Farm.
14.ln reply, the learned Government Pleader Shri. Rahul has drawn our attention to the Acquittance Roll, as also the receipts for contract labourers produced along with a Memo. With the support of the receipts produced therein, the Government Pleader submits that all the applicants were engaged on contract basis as is evident from the receipts. They were not engaged on daily wage basis as asserted by the applicants. Reference is also made to paragraph 5 of the order of this Tribunal Annexure A2, where the stand of the Government is recorded by this Tribunal. It is to the effect that the Government had no intention to consider the appointees like applicants for future employment. It says “wherever daily wage contract basis appointment is made from outside, those would be considered as having no future claim for employment."
15.It is not in dispute that, after AnnexureA2 order of this Tribunal and after the issuance of Annexure A3 Government Order, the engagement of labourers in the 4th respondent's Farm could be done only through Employment Exchange. The only dispute is with regard to the entitlement of the applicant for the benefits which were conferred on daily wage employees in Annexure A3 Government Order. The nature of the appointment of the applicant, according to the respondent is a contract appointment. Though the applicants contend that they were not appointed as contract employees, there is no evidence to show that their appointment was not on contract basis. On the other hand, the Minutes of the 3rd respondent Panchayat, as well as the Acquittance Roll and the receipts are clear evidence, which suggests that the applicants were engaged on a contract basis.
16.The Government has taken a specific stand that the benefit of Annexure A3 Government Order was not intended for persons who were engaged on contract basis. It was meant only for those daily wage, or casual wage labourers, who were being employed for a long time in the Farm for various works. The applicants were engaged as labourers in implementation of a project, as is evident from the Minutes of the 3rd respondent Panchayat and also from the documents produced by the respondents 1, 2 and 4. The engagement was under a project, which was financed under a different head, as is shown in the Minutes of District Panchayat. The funds for the wages of the applicants had come from the project fund approved by the District Panchayat. It was on getting approval from the District Panchayat, that the 4th respondent had proceeded with the selection process for appointment of the applicants on contract basis, as is evident from Annexure A11. When the Government declares that the benefits extended by a Government Order is confined to a particular category, that cannot be disputed or confronted in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary. There is nothing on record before this Tribunal to show that the applicants were not engaged on contract basis or to show that the benefit of Annexure A3 Government Order was extended to the contract employees as well.
17.In the above circumstances, it is clear that the applicants are not entitled for the benefits flowing from Clause (iii) of Annexure A3 Government Order. It is also made clear that the respondents are free to continue with the selection process referred in the interim order on 10.09.2021 and to finalise the same.
The Original Application is accordingly dismissed.”
Being aggrieved, the applicants are now before this Court with this original petition.
On 11.09.2024, when this original petition was taken up for consideration, this Court granted an interim order staying the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent to which it allowed the selection process to continue. This Court directed that the finalisation of the selection process will stand deferred until the next posting date, though other processes can continue. During the pendency of the original petition, additional respondents 16 to 64 were impleaded by the orders in the interlocutory applications filed by those respondents. On 19.03.2025, when this original petition was taken up for consideration as per the order in I.A.No.3 of 2025 filed by the additional respondents 17 and 18, by considering the fact that their appointment orders have been issued much before the interim order dated 11.09.2024, this Court permitted those respondents to join duty, however, making it clear that their appointment will be subject to the outcome of the original petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants, the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent District Panchayat, the learned counsel for respondents 7, 8, 11 and 12, the learned counsel for respondents 19 to 64 and also the learned counsel for the additional 16th respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants submitted that the petitioners are employed as daily wage workers from 19.12.2008 to 01.12.2016 and therefore they are entitled for the benefits flowing from Clause (iii) of the Annexure A3 Government order dated 13.12.2017. The finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order that the petitioners-applicants are contract employees is incorrect. In order to prove that the petitioners-applicants are daily wage employees, they have produced the muster roll and register. Annexure A10 letter dated 06.09.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent also shows that the appointment of the petitioners-applicants was on daily wage basis.
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would argue that Annexure R3(d) minutes of the Panchayat Standing Committee would show that the petitioners are appointed on contract basis and the payment to them was made from the project fund. The Tribunal also found that the petitioners are contract employees. Therefore, there is no illegality in the findings of the Tribunal.
The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent District Panchayat submitted that the 3rd respondent acted upon the instructions of the Government. The payment was made to the petitioners from the project fund and therefore they cannot claim that they are daily wage employees.
The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents argued that they were selected and appointed to the post on completion of the selection process. However, their appointment was not regularized even after two years due to the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioners-applicants cannot challenge the appointment of the party respondents, which was done through the Employment Exchange.
Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.
In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar and also perused the materials on record. The appointment of labourers in the 4th respondent farm was done through the Employment Exchange pursuant to Annexure A2 order dated 02.12.2016 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.782 of 2016. The claim of the petitioners-applicants is that they are entitled for the benefit of Annexure A3 Government order dated 13.12.2017, wherein it is stated that the daily wage employees who worked till 01.12.2016, at least for a period of 30 days can be appointed as casual labourers on a rotation basis. The claim of the petitioners-applicants is that they are daily wage employees coming under the said category. Whereas the contesting respondents are of the stand that the petitioners-applicants are contract employees and they will not fall under the category of daily wage employees mentioned under Annexure A3 order.
Annexure R3(d) minutes of the standing committee meeting of the Panchayat dated 30.09.2013 would show that the engagement of the petitioners-applicants is on contract basis and the payment to them was made from the project fund. As found by the Tribunal, there is no other evidence to show that the petitioners-applicants are not engaged as contract employees. Merely because Annexure A10 letter dated 06.09.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent says about appointment of daily wage employees, it cannot be said that the petitioners are appointed as daily wage employees, when the decision of the Panchayat is otherwise. The payment to such employees appointed were also made from the project fund. As rightly found by the Tribunal when the Government declares that the benefits extended by the Government order is confined to a particular category, that cannot be disputed or confronted in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary.
Having considered the pleadings and the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioners-applicants are not entitled to the benefits flowing from Clause (iii) of Annexure A3 Government order. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned Ext.P12 order of the Tribunal by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, this original petition stands dismissed.