Shri Mantri Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge

This petition initially was preferred before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal which on its abolition stand transferred to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. The petitioners have claimed the following relief:-

"(i) That the verbal disengagement of the applicants in November, 2002, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the Respondents may be directed to reengage the applicants as a Labourers/daily paid worker with all consequential benefits like seniority and arrears of salary since their disengagement till reengagement forthwith."

The above relief has been sought on the ground that the petitioners were engaged in Chanhail Forest Beat of Trehta Range, District Chamba as a labourer temporarily on 1.6.1996. Their services were dispensed with w.e.f. 1.11.2002 orally whereas persons junior to them were retained. The retrenchment of their services without issuance of proper notice is stated to be violative of the principle of natural justice being arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The respondents in reply to the petition have taken a stand that the applicants are working on daily wage basis under Trehta Range of Bharmour Forest Division since 1995 in the capacity of casual labourers, however, not against any specific posts or any permanent posts. In fact, they are being engaged as casual labourers from time to time for doing seasonal work such as raising of seedling and plantations during mansoon and winter season. The Range Officer had informed the petitioner on 1.11.2002 that there was no work available for them and that they would be called as and when the work is available for them. When the funds were made available in the month of February 2003, they were called and re-engaged on plantation work. The man-days chart Annexure-A in respect of both the applicants are also annexed to the reply, besides Annexure B-I and B-II. The orders issued by 3rd respondent to Shri Ashwani Kumar, Forest Guard, Chanhail Beat have also been filed along with the reply to substantiate the above stand taken by the respondents.

In rejoinder, the petitioners have reiterated the retention of juniors to them and alleged violation of the principle "last come first go".

The respondents in sur-rejoinder have denied the same being wrong and annexed Annexure C-I to C-IV, the man-days Charts to show the work provided to petitioner No. 1 as well as other casual labourers during the year 2003 to 2007.

The 3rd respondent has also filed additional affidavit dated 15.12.2007 to the effect that the petitioner No. 1 did not report for work in Chanhail beat w.e.f. 1.2.2006 to 31.8.2007.

I have heard learned counsel on both sides and also gone through the record.

Admittedly, both the petitioners were working as casual labourers in Chanhail Forest Beat of Trehta Range under Bharmaour Forest Division, District Chamba. The man-days Chart Annexure-A, which pertains to their deployment right from 1996 to 2003 reveals that the petitioners have been provided the work during that period. In man-days Charts Annexures C-I to C-IV annexed to the sur-rejoinder although the name of petitioner No. 1 find mention yet the name of petitioner No. 2 do not figure therein. The man-days charts referred to hereinabove establish on record that the applicants were being engaged as casual labourers only during the mansoon and winter season obviously on seasonal work such as seedling and plantation etc. because the nurseries are raised mostly in mansoon/winter season. Plantation work also takes place during these seasons alone.

It is nowhere the case of the petitioner that they were not casual labourers rather they themselves stated in para 6 of the petition that they were engaged as labourers temporarily. There disengagement on 1.11.2002 orally by the Range Officer, is not disputed by the respondents and then rather explained while submitting that since there was no work available for them, therefore, they were asked not to come for work and that they will be called on the availability of work. Not only this but during next year i.e. February 2003 they were engaged again as is apparent from man-days charts Annexure-A to the reply to the writ petition. The petitioner No. 1 continued to be engaged as a casual labourer even during the year 2003 to 2007 as is apparent from the perusal of the man-days charts Annexures C-I to C-IV filed by the respondents along with sur-rejoinder. The man-days charts further reveal that petitioner No. 1 has completed 240 days only for once i.e. in the year 2001 and during none of the years till 2006-07. The petitioner No. 1 however, has completed more than 180 days in the year 1997 and 1999 whereas the petitioner No. 2 in the years 1998, 1999 and also in 2001.

True it is that the services of the petitioners who are working on daily wage basis as casual labourers with respondents could have not been dispensed with orally, however, the notices Annexure B-I and B-II issued by Range Forest Officer, Trehta Range reveal that a general notice was displayed for the information of all concerned including the petitioners that in Chanhail Beat no work is available and that any casual labourer who is prepared to work in any other beat where the work is available may be deployed there. Therefore, there may not be individual notices issued to the petitioners by the respondents, however, a general notice qua retrenchment of their services was issued and as such their retrenchment temporarily from service for want of work cannot be said to be illegal particularly when they were re-engaged in the month of February, 2003 on the availability of work in Chanhail Beat.

Admittedly, the petitioners were re-engaged on the availability of work. The relief as sought vide prayer (ii) supra is thus also not available to them. It is, however, expected from the respondents, being a modal employer that in future they shall follow the principle of "last come first go" strictly while resorting to the retrenchment of the services of casual labourers like the petitioners and it is only after issuance of prior notice to individual casual labourers, in accordance with law, the services shall be dispensed with. With the above observations, this writ petition shall stand finally disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

No order so as to costs.