Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Ap Balan vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 20 May, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. No.180/00137/2022
Tuesday, this the 20th day of May, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.P. Balan, Aged 69 years, S/o Unichoyi (Casual
Labourer/BSNL/Kozhikode), Areeparambath House
Peringalam Desom, Kunnamangalam P.O., Kozhikode, 673 571
-Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. T.A.Rajan]
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Represented by its Chairman,
A 703, Statesman House, B-148, Barathambha Road, New Delhi-110 001
2. The Chief General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram 695 033
3. The General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Kozhikode - 673 001
4. The Divisional Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Kozhikode-673 001
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mr. V.Santharam]
The application having been heard on 13.05.2025, the Tribunal on
20.05.2025 delivered the following:
2025.05.20 12:04:05
DEEPA S
+05'30'
O.A.No.137/2022 2
ORDER
The undisputed facts of the case can be stated first. The applicant had started as a Casual Mazdoor under the Divisional Engineer, Telecom on 06.10.1978, selected through Employment Exchange and continued service till 30.12.1986. He was re-engaged on 06.08.1990 and then continued till 14.12.1994. Thereafter, since his service was terminated, he raised an industrial dispute and the matter was taken as ID(C)No.7/1995 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. By Annexure-A1 order dated 29.10.1997 the industrial dispute was answered in favour of the applicant and the respondent was directed to re-engage him on the following terms:
"14. In the result, an award is passed holding that denial of employment to the workman by the management is not justified. The management is directed to reinstate the workman as an approved casual mazdoor within one month from the date of publication of this award in the official gazette. The workman is entitled to all the benefits and privileges and continuity of service to which a casual labourer is entitled to. For the reasons stated in the foregoing he is not entitled to backwages."
This award was taken up in challenge before the Hon'ble High Court in O.P.No.7391/1988. By Annexure-A2 that was dismissed; the Writ Appeal 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 3 was also dismissed and then the respondents moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court with SLP. That SLP as well as the Review Petition were dismissed and ultimately, by Annexure-A7 order dated 09.07.2010 he was reinstated in service extracted below:
"BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (A Govt. of India Enterprise) Office of the Principal General Manager Telecom, Kozhikode-673001 To The Divisional Engineer Telecom BSNL Complex, SHK Street. Calicut No. STZ/1008/2006-10/16 dated at Calicut-1 the 9th July 2010 Order In compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble Labour Court Calicut order No. L/40012/40/95-IR(DU) dated 26/12/1997 (Award in ID No. 7/95 dated 29/10/1997) Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 27th June 2005 in WA No. 1062 of 2004 and DGM(TE) BSNL CO order No.272-28/2005-Pers-IV dated 06-07-2010. Sri.A.P.Balan, aged 57 years. S/o. Sri.Unichayi, Areeparambath House, Peringalam Desom, Kunnamangalam (P.O), Calicut is hereby empanelled as casual mazdoor in Calicut SSA. His services may be utilized as and when the work of casual mazdoor arises in your division. This does not confer any right for regularization of his services.
Name &Address Father's Deemed date of Name empanelment Sri.A.P.Balan, S/o. Sri.Unichayi, Sri.Unichayi 01/01/98 Areeparambath House, Peringalam Desom, Kunnamangalam (P.O),Calicut Asst.General Manager (Admn) For Principal General Managor Telecom, BSNL, Kozhikode 1."
2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 4
2. Thus he was reinstated on 10.07.2010 with deemed date of empanelment on 01.01.1998. Thereafter, alleging non-compliance of the direction, he moved the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam with a Contempt Petition, CP No.1/2016. By Annexure-A8 order dated 27.01.2020 that CP was dismissed. Later, he moved again for getting backwages for the period he remained outside employment. Annexure- A8 was disposed of directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.6,57,589/- for the period from 26.01.1998 to 09.07.2010. Admittedly, that amount has already been disbursed. Till this point, there is no dispute.
3. Thereafter, citing the case of one M.K.Jagadeesh, who, according to the applicant, is his junior and very many others as shown in Annexures-A11 and A15, the applicant moved Annexure-A12 representation before the 2nd respondent seeking grant of temporary status as in the case of Jagadeesh and also for grant of pension and pensionary benefits from 01.03.2012. By Annexure-A13 order dated 29.07.2021 this Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the representation within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. That representation was rejected by Annexure-A14, which is 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 5 the cause of action for approaching the Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure-A14, to declare that he is entitled to get temporary status and regularisation in service from the date of giving temporary status to his junior Sri.M.K.Jagadeesh, to declare that denial of pension and pensionary benefits is illegal and to direct the respondents to grant pension to the applicant with effect from 01.03.2012 with 12% interest and costs.
4. Thus it is clear that on the basis of Annexure-A1 order which had become final by virtue of the orders of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court he was re-inducted on 10.07.2010 and then on attaining the age of 60 years he retired from service on 29.12.2012. Now, after nearly 10 years of his retirement, he has approached this Tribunal with the aforestated reliefs.
5. According to the applicant, his junior, the said Jagadeesh and so many others as seen in Annexuxres-A11 and A15 were conferred temporary status and then were regularised and therefore denial of the benefits to the applicant is illegal and he is entitled to be given benefits from 01.03.2012.
6. The respondents have disputed the claim of the applicant.
2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 6 According to them, the Annexure-A7 order was passed way back on 09.07.2010, following which he was re-inducted in service on 10.07.2010 and then retired on 29.12.2012. There is no justification in making a belated representation and on that basis he is not justified in approaching the Tribunal. So, according to them, the O.A. is barred by limitation and cannot be entertained.
7. Secondly, it is submitted that Annexure-A12 was also a delayed representation. It was submitted on 11.01.2021, after about nine years of his retirement. Such a belated representation will not confer any fresh cause of action for him, that the cause of action would be from his date of retirement on 29.12.2012. It is also pointed out that, in Annexure-A7 itself it was made clear that it will not give him any right for regularisation of his services. Annexure-A7 is not under challenge and therefore, at this stage, he does not get any fresh cause of action for agitating stale matters.
8. Further, referring to Annexure-R2(b), the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) scheme, which was in force from 01.10.1989, they said that the said Jagadeesh and others were given temporary status and then regularisation on the basis of the 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 7 conditions in the scheme, which are not applicable to the applicant. That was a scheme of the Department of Telecom and the applicant was reinstated and had retired from service from the BSNL, which is not applicable to the applicant and therefore on merits also he is not entitled to get any relief. During 1998-2010 there was a ban of engagement of casual labourers and during the relevant period which was applicable to the scheme, the applicant was not a casual mazdoor. Therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefits of the scheme nor can claim parity with Jagadeesh and others. In short, the respondents wanted the O.A. to be dismissed.
9. The applicants filed rejoinder along with Annexure-A15 which shows another group of casual mazdoors, who were regularised. According to the applicant, he is entitled to get the benefits of such a scheme and orders granted to the similarly placed person like Jagadeesh and persons in Annexures-A11 and A15.
10. Heard Sri.T.A.Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V.Santharam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
11. Respective contentions were reiterated by the learned counsel and I have perused the materials and documents made available 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 8 for the case.
12. The learned Standing Counsel has relied on the decisions reported in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and another v. K.Thangappan and another [(2006) 4 SCC 322], U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another [(2006) 11 SCC 464],Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others [(2007) 9 SCC 274], A.P.Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others [(2007) 2 SCC 725], S.S.Balu and another v. State of Kerala and others [(2009) 2 SCC 479], Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others v. State of Orissa and others [(2010) 12 SCC 471], Union of India and others v. M.K.Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59], Union of India and others v. A.Durairaj by LRS. [(2010) 14 SCC 389], State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others [(2015) 1 SCC 347] and Union of India and others v. C.Girija and others [(2019) 15 SCC 633].
13. I have already narrated the admitted facts. The applicant had commenced service as casual mazdoor on 06.10.1978, which continued till 30.12.1986. Thereafter, he was re-engaged on 06.08.1990 and continued till 14.12.1994. When he was not re-engaged, he raised an industrial dispute and approached the Labour Court, Kozhikode and the 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 9 Labour Court directed to reinstate him, as quoted supra. The gazette notification was published on 26.12.1997. Therefore, he ought to have been re-engaged on 26.01.1998. Before that the respondents had moved the Hon'ble High Court challenging the award, which has become final on account of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, by Annexure-A7 order dated 09.07.2010 he was reinstated in service with deemed date of empanelment on 01.01.1998. Thus he was re-engaged from 10.07.2010 and continued as such till 29.12.2012, the date of his attaining the age of 60 years. Long after, he gave Annexure-A12 representation which was rejected by Annexure-A14. Dissatisfied by the Annexure-A14 order he has approached the Tribunal.
14. After hearing counsel on both sides, it is clear that the contentions raised by the respondents are formidable. The Tribunal has no doubt in mind that the applicant has approached this Tribunal with a stale claim. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, in Annexure-A7 itself it is stated in clear terms that the said order will not confer any right of regularisation of service. Annexure-A7 is not under challenge. Without challenging such an order he cannot be heard to say that he is entitled to get status of temporary mazdoor and also 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 10 regularisation. Annexure-A7 was passed way back on 09.07.2010. After accepting the terms of Annexure-A7 and enjoying the benefit of the order, now he cannot turn around and say that he is entitled to be regularised and get backwages, pension etc.
15. Secondly, the applicant had retired from service on 29.12.2012 after attaining the age of 60 years. He gave Annexure-A12 representation long after retirement, on 11.01.2021. It is true that the cause of action for getting backwages, regularisation, grant of temporary status etc. arose during the period of his service, but during those period he remained dormant and took up the case only on 11.01.2021. For the mere reason that in Annexure-A13 the respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the representation as per law, does not give him any fresh cause of action. In other words, his claim that he had obtained cause of action from the date of Annexure-A14, on 01.11.2021 cannot be accepted. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, a belated representation and its rejection will not revive the cause of action. Even though this Tribunal had directed the disposal of the representation in accordance with law, still the cause of action will relate back to the date 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 11 of original cause of action, that is, during the period when he had served the respondents BSNL and had retired from service on 29.12.2012. He ought to have raised these disputes, atleast when Annexure-A7 order was issued which was not done. After accepting Annexure-A7 with open eyes and preferring to join service without raising any objection, now he cannot say that he is entitled to be conferred with temporary status and regularisation and also entitled to get pension etc.
16. The applicant has placed reliance on Annexures-A9,A10, A11 and A15 to draw parity with Jagadeesh and some others, who, according to him, are his juniors, who were granted benefits and thus he is entitled to get the very same treatment. It is not understood as to how he can compare himself with that of Jagadeesh. The respondents wanted to say that Jagadeesh was granted temporary status through Annexure- A10/R2(c) based on Annexure-R2(b) scheme. Even though that is not established, that will not improve the case of the applicant.
17. In this connection, broad case of Jagadeesh has to be looked into.
18. It is shown that Jagadeesh had commenced service as casual mazdoor in September 1981 and had worked for 153 days and then 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 12 disengaged. During challenge, this Tribunal directed the Union of India, Ministry of Communications etc. to appoint him as a fresh casual employee against any of the existing vacancies. It was further directed to consider his claim for regularisation, in accordance with law, taking into consideration his prior services, if found eligible. It is seen that he was granted temporary status on 15.08.1986 based on Annexure-R2(b) scheme. Similarly placed other employees as shown in Annexures-A11 and A15 were also granted temporary status and regularisation. But that will not improve the case of the respondents. Merely for the reason that the respondents could not make out the case advanced by them, that will not give an automatic boost to the case of the applicant, especially after long lapses of time. The applicant should be able to stand up on his own legs.
19. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, Annexure-A11 shows that the said Jagadeesh was granted temporary status on the basis of Annexure-R2(b) scheme. The two essential conditions, as highlighted by the learned Standing Counsel for granting temporary status, are as follows:
"(i)Temporary status would be conferred on all the 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 13 Casual Labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five day week). Such casual labourers will be designated as Temporary Mazdoor. xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not be automatically brought to the permanent establishment unless they were selected through the regular selection process for Group D posts. "
20. It is evident that the Annexure-R2(b) scheme had come into force on 01.10.1989. At that time, admittedly, the applicant was not on engagement. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, it is very clear that during the period the applicant stood disengaged from service. Either in 1989 or one year before that he was not in service; the question is whether Jagadeesh was in service. From Annexure-A9 it does not show that he was in service during the relevant time. Whatever it may be, the failure of the respondents to establish the defence case put up through Annexure-A9 will not improve the case of the applicant.
21. Annexure-R2(b) is a scheme propounded by the Department of Telecommunication. The BSNL was formed long after, on 01.10.2000. At the time of currency of the scheme, which was a one time scheme, the 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 14 applicant was not in service, so that he was not entitled to get the benefit of the same for granting temporary status or regularisation. Moreover, it is a scheme of the Department of Telecom, which, it is not proved, applicable to the BSNL, which was established on 01.10.2000. Whatever it may be, there cannot be any negative equality. The fact that even if the benefit was wrongly granted to Jagadeesh will not confer any right on the applicant to seek the benefit of a wrong order.
22. The background of Annexures-A11 and A15 are also not brought in. Those are cases in which temporary status and regularisation were granted to a group of employees. We do not know whether those persons are juniors to the applicant; it may be true that Jagadeesh was a junior in the sense that he had commenced service as casual mazdoor only in September 1981, whereas the applicant had commenced service on 06.10.1978. But that alone is not the consideration to make a comparison between Jagadeesh and the applicant. Whatever it may be, even if a wrong order is passed in favour of Jagadeesh, the applicant cannot claim the benefit of the same.
23. After hearing counsel on both sides, we have no doubt that the applicant is not entitled to get any benefit. The decision in Secretary, 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 15 State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] also is very important. Similarly, the case of the applicant is liable to be rejected based on the decision quoted in the reply, BSNL, Jammu v. Teja Singh rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.292/2009.
In short, the Original Application is barred by limitation. A stale claim has been tried to be projected by the applicant. The submission of a belated representation or its rejection will not give him fresh cause of action. Therefore, the Original Application fails and is dismissed.
(Dated, this the 20th May, 2025) JUSTICE K.HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 16 List of Annexures Annexure A1: A true copy of the award dated 29.10.97 of the Labour Court, Kozhikode in SD(c) No.7/1995 Annexure A2: A true copy of the judgment dated 04.03.2004 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P No 7391/1998. Annexure A3: A true copy of the judgment dated 27.06.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.A. No 1062/2004 Annexure A4: A true copy of the order dated 06.08.09 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2026/2006 Annexure A5: A true copy of the order dated 21.04.10 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RP(C) No-753/2010 Annexure A6: A true copy of the order dated 30.07.2012 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam in C.P. No 4/2010.
Annexure A7: A true copy of the order bearing No-STZ/1008/2006- 10/16 dated 09-07-2010 of the 3rd respondent. Annexure A8: A true copy of the order dated 27.01.2020 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam in C.P No.1/2016 Annexure A9 A true copy of the judgment dated 17.06.1992 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A No.368/1991 Annexure A10: A true copy of the order dated 16.08.1996 of the Divisional Engineer Telecom Transmission Project, Kozhikode Annexure A11: A true copy of Memo No. SDC 3035/2001/2 dated 26- 04-2001 of the third respondent 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.137/2022 17 Annexure A12: True copy of the representation dated 11-01-2021 submitted by the applicant to the third respondent Annexure A13: True copy of the order dated 29-7-2021 of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A No 180/00350/2021 Annexure A14 : A true copy of the Order No. STZ-1008/2020-2021/11 dated at Kozhikode the 1-11-2021 Annexure A15: A true copy of the order bearing NO.SOC 3035/2001/2 dated 26.04.2001 of third respondent Annexure-R2(a):- True copy of the Communication No. STZ/1008/2020- 21/2 dated 02.11.2020.
Annexure-R2(b):- True copy of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989.
Annexure-R2(c):- True copy of the Order No. DE/TP/KE/E-6/96-97/12 dated 16.08.1996.
Annexure-R2(d):- True copies of the available documents evidencing payments to the applicant for the works executed by him on contract basis during the relevant period. Annexure-R2(e):- True copy of the circular No. 269-4/93/STN-II (Pt) dated 12.02.1999.
************** 2025.05.20 12:04:05 DEEPA S +05'30'