Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Makkar T M vs M/O Agriculture on 15 November, 2017
1 O.A No. 180/00321/17
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00321/2017
Wednesday, this the 15th day of November, 2017.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. U. SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. E.K. BHARAT BHUSHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Makkar T.M,
Daily wage skilled worker,
DSP Farm, Neriamangalam, Ernakulam. - Applicant
[By Advocate Mr. K. Abraham Lal]
Versus
1. The Coconut Development Board,
Kera Bhavan, SRVHS Road,
Kochi - 682 011 represented by its Chairman.
2. The Assistant Director (Farm Manager),
Coconut Development Board,
DSP Farm, Neriamangalam,
Ernakulam District - 686 693. - Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. Siby J. Monippally]
The application having been heard on 08.11.2017, the Tribunal on
15.11.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member O.A. No. 321 of 2017 is filed by Shri T.M. Makkar, daily rated skilled worker, DSP Farm, Neriamangalam, Ernakulam under the Coconut Development Board. The reliefs sought in the O.A are as follows:-
"i) Issue a direction commanding the respondents to regularise the applicant retrospectively with effect from the date of his initial engagement in 1991 or at any rate on completion of 207 days in any of the subsequent years and disburse him all consequential monetary benefits arising therefrom.
ii) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice. And
iii) Award costs."
2. Facts of the case in brief are as below:-
2 O.A No. 180/00321/17
The applicant was doing the work of pollination (hybridization), weed cutting, ploughing and other associated tasks in the Coconut Farm of the 2 nd respondent. He is aggrieved by the fact that, despite having worked several years in the said farm, his services are yet to be regularised. He demanded a copy of the attendance register of the 2 nd respondent's farm but was denied the same on the ground that no attendance register and seniority list of workers are available with them. According to the information received through RTI respondent No. 1 states that only a Gate Register is maintained and no muster roll of labourers is available. However, as per Annexure A-5, it can be seen that he has worked for several days during the three year period from 2013 to 2016. The respondent Board is an instrumentality of the Union of India. The service conditions of the Central Government employees should be applicable to the employees of the Board and to the applicant.
3. In 1992, the Government of India announced a scheme by which several daily rated employees like Safaiwala, mali, sweeper, etc. were conferred permanent status. But the applicant was denied the benefit. Despite the fact that he has been continuing with the respondent farm for the last several years and having completed more than 207 days, he ought to be regularised in service with retrospective effect. He calls to his assistance the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & 3 Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 which authorised regularisation of daily rated employees who had put in 10 years of service. Further, he has also cited State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L. Kesari & Ors. AIR (2010) SCC 2587; State of Jharkhand & Others v. Kamal Prasad & Others (2014) 7 SCC 223; Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar & Others (2015) 8 SCC 265.
3 O.A No. 180/00321/17
4. Per contra, the respondents have denied that the applicant was a regular daily rated employee. It is mentioned that he was a labour contractor and was neither a casual labourer nor a temporary workman. He used to do the work of coconut basin making, pit making, irrigation and weed cutting, etc., by engaging his own workers and could not claim any continuous service at the said farm. Accordingly, it is averred that he is not entitled to get any benefits under law. Further, by way of additional reply statement, respondent No. 2 has produced Annexure R-1, a Tender Form received from the applicant which is the applicant's bid against short tender notice in the farm offering to undertake specified tasks at certain quoted amounts per day.
5. Applicant filed a rejoinder stating that by virtue of the fact that he did not have a contractor licence, he could not be called a contractor and the attempt to picture him as one, is a deliberate act to deny him his rightful dues. He affirms that he has been a daily rated employee at the farm for the last several years.
6. We have heard Shri Abraham Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Siby J. Monippally, learned counsel for the respondents. We have also examined all pleadings; oral and documents.
7. The contention of the applicant rests on his claim that he has been a regular daily rated employee for the last several years. He states that he has put in 18 years of service and in some places in the O.A contends that he has been working in the farm since 1991. His claim is for regularisation taking due note of the fact that he has worked for more than 207 days during several years. To decide the question whether a daily rated employee is to be regularised, the seminal judgment in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi & 3 Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 holds the field. However, none of the conditions set out 4 O.A No. 180/00321/17 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case seem to apply to the applicant's claims.
8. The respondents have vigorously rejected the contentions that the applicant was a daily rated employee. Instead they have produced Annexure R-1 from which it is clear that the applicant used to take up short term labour contracts. The applicant has no valid defence against this argument. Thus on both the grounds viz., his entitlement as a daily rated employee eligible for regularisation vide Umadevi and the proof produced by the respondents to show that he was a short term labour contractor and not a regular daily rated worker, weigh against the applicant's case. The judgments produced by the applicant are also not specific to the circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the two factors mentioned above.
9. Thus on a consideration of all factors, we come to the conclusion that the O.A is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A is rejected. No order as to costs.
(Dated, 15th November, 2017.)
(E.K. BHARAT BHUSHAN) (U. SARATHCHANDRAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ax
5 O.A No. 180/00321/17
Applicant's Annexures
Annexure A1 True copy of the application dated 04.08.2016 by the
applicant under the RTI Act.
Annexure AIA English translation of Annexure A-1 Annexure AII True copy of the reply dated 29.08.2016 from the Central Public Information Officer.
Annexure AIIA English translation of Annexure AII Annexure AIII True copy of the appeal dated 07.09.2016 by the applicant under the RTI Act.
Annexure AIIIA English translation of Annexure AIII. Annexure AIV True copy of order dated 03.10.2016 disposing the appeal by chairman.
Annexure AV True copy of letter dated 18.08.2016 from the Coconut Development Board.
Annexures of Respondents Annexure R-1 Quotation dated 8.11.2012 submitted by the applicant along with English translation.
******* 6 O.A No. 180/00321/17