Satbir Singh and Another vs Union of India and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioners before us were the original applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, claiming a relief that they have been working as casual workers with the respondents till their services were dispensed with in November, 1995 and were, thus, denied conferment of temporary status as obtained to all casual workers who had rendered a continuous service of at least 240 days in one calendar year as per policy guidelines and scheme adopted by the respondents. The allegation was that some of the juniors of the petitioners have benefited.

The application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 18.3.1997 on the premise that the petitioners have specifically not averred and have been evasive on the issue of they having completed 240 days in a year having been engaged as daily workers for seasonal agricultural labour work. The scheme provided for conferment of temporary status only if 240 days are completed in at least one year. The petitioners were alleged not to have even asked for production of the records by the respondents. It is this order which is assailed in the present petition.

The subsequent development has been that the petitioner No. 1 being the husband of petitioner No. 2 has already withdrawn from the petition in terms of orders dated 28.7.2000. This is so as he was granted temporary status during the pendency of the petition. The petition is, thus, being prosecuted only on behalf of petitioner No. 2, the wife.

The record pertaining to the period for which petitioner No. 2 was engaged has been produced before us, the details of which are as under:

Name--Smt. Usha w/o Sh. Satvir Date of initial engagement--28-11-90

A perusal of the aforesaid chart shows that petitioner No. 2 was engaged for different periods of time for seasonal work from 1990 to 1995. In no year has there been 240 days completed and, thus, the petitioner would not be covered by the policy.

On our query, learned counsel for the respondents states that the practice of engaging daily-workers has ceased since the year 1996 and it is, thus, not as if the petitioner No. 2 is being discriminated against.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not possible to grant relief to petitioner No. 2 of temporary status in terms of the policy. If there is any other legal remedy available on the allegation of unfair labour practice, as urged before us by learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, , then it is open for petitioner No. 2 to pursue that remedy in accordance with law including under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petition is accordingly dismissed in the aforesaid terms.