Jia Lal vs Border Roads Nokh Ram Vs Union of India

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.—Mr. Neel Kamal Sood and Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the dispute involved in these writ petitions is covered by the judgment dated 4th March, 2011, delivered by the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Vartak Labour Union, . Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, stated at the Bar that he is also relying upon the same judgment and drew our attention to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 21 and 22 herein:-

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 23-4-2010 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:

Relying upon the provisions contained in Paras 501 to 518 of the Regulations, 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 sox 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 sox 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 Para 503 of the Regulations referred to above, the casual personnel are not eligible for any other privileges for continued employment under the Government.

(emphasis supplied by us)

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, where members of the respondent 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 the BRO for execution of its ongoing projects.

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, further stated that in terms of the judgment referred to above, the matter was considered and the decision was made. Thereafter, the contempt petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 30th August, 2013 (Annexure R-5)

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that they may be given liberty to seek appropriate remedy at appropriate stage.

In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions in terms of the judgment referred to above, with liberty as prayed for. We hope and trust that the respondents shall do the needful within three months.

The writ petitions are disposed of alongwith the all pending applications.