Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Daya Ram vs Union Of India on 30 August, 2017
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 30th day of August 2017
HON'BLE DR. MURTAZA ALI, MEMBER - J
Original Application No. 330/00055 of 2015
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00056 of 2015
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00186 of 2015
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00187 of 2015
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00820 of 2013
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00915 of 2013
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00916 of 2013
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00917 of 2013
Along with
Original Application No. 330/001596 of 2015
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00897 of 2015
Original Application No. 330/00055 of 2015
Krishna Kumar S/o Shri Kundan Lal aged about 42 years
R/o Moh. Ram Nagar, Post University, District Bareilly
(U.P).
.................. Applicant
By Adv: Shri Anil Kumar Singh/Shri R.C. Pathak
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
Page 2 of 34
3. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
6. Incharge P&C Division, IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly
(U.P).
7. Incharge (Farm), IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P.)
8. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section with temporary status in
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
11. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
12. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00056 of 2015
Bheem Sen aged about 45 years S/o Sh. Banshi Lal R/o
Village Kuan Danda, P.O. Balipur, District Bareilly (U.P).
...............Applicant
By Adv Shri Anil Kumar Singh/Shri R.C. Pathak
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
6. Incharge Livestock Production Research (C&B),
Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
Page 3 of 34
7. Ram Das, Mazdoor, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Jaipal Kashyap Mazdoor, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
11. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
12. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
13. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00186 of 2015
Vijay Pal aged about 48 years, S/o Sh. Cheda Lal R/o
Village Kuan Danda, P.O. Balipur, District Bareilly
(U.P).
...........Applicant
By Adv: Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Shri R.C Pathak
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
6. Incharge Livestock Production Research (C&B),
I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
7. Ram Das, Mazdoor, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Jaipal Kashyap Mazdoor, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
Page 4 of 34
11. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
12. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
13. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00187 of 2015
Daya Ram aged about 47 years, S/o Sh. Banshi Lal R/o
Village Kuan Danda, P.O. Balipur, District Bareilly (U.P)
........Applicant
By Adv. Shri Anil Kumar Singh/
Shri R.C. Pathak
Versus.
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
6. Incharge Livestock Production Research (C&B),
I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
7. Ram Das, Mazdoor, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Jaipal Kashyap Mazdoor, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
11. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
12. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
13. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Page 5 of 34
ALONG WITH
Original Application No. 330/00820 of 2013
Ram Sewak aged about 45 years, S/o Sh. Budha Sen R/o
Village Rodhi, P.O. Chaubari, District Bareilly.
...........Applicant
By Adv. Shri Anil Kumar Singh/
Shri R.C. Pathak
Versus.
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
6. Incharge (Farm), I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
7. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section with temporary status in
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
11. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
ALONG WITH
Original Application No. 330/00915 of 2013
Indresh Singh aged about 43 years S/o Sh. Devendra
Singh R/o Village Satvan Patti, Vilas Nagar, Bareilly.
.............Applicant
Page 6 of 34
By Adv. Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Shri R.C. Pathak.
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
4. Incharge (Farm), I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
5. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section with temporary status in
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
6. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
7. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
ALONG WITH
Original Application No. 330/00916 of 2013
Jagan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Prasad aged about 43 years, R/o
Village Dhanua, P.O. Chathia, Bareilly
.............Applicant
By Adv. Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Shri R.C. Pathak.
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
4. Incharge LPR CB Division, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly
(U.P).
Page 7 of 34
5. Incharge (Farm), IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P)
6. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section with temporary status in
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
7. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00917 of 2013
Pooran Lal Kashyap S/o Sh. Bholey Ram aged about 44
years, R/o Village Sunor, P.O. Sundari, District Bareilly.
.............Applicant
By Adv. Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Shri R.C. Pathak.
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
4. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
5. Incharge P&C Division, I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly
(U.P).
6. Incharge (Farm), IVRI, Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P)
7. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section with temporary status in
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
Page 8 of 34
10. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
11. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Along with
Original Application No. 330/001596 of 2015
Mohar Singh S/o Shri Bihari Lal aged about 48 years, R/o
Mohanpur Urf Ram Nagar Post MJP Rohilkhand
University, District Bareilly (U.P).
.............Applicant
By Adv. Shri R.C. Pathak.
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
6. Incharge Livestock Production Research (C&B),
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
7. Ram Das, Mazdoor I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Jaipal Kashyap, Mazdoor I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
11. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
12. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
13. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
Page 9 of 34
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Mr. M.B Singh
Along with
Original Application No. 330/00897 of 2015
Nand Kishore aged about 45 years, S/o Sh. Man Singh
R/o 459, Azam Nagar, Behind Ayurvedic College,
District Bareilly (U.P).
.............Applicant
By Adv. Shri R.C. Pathak.
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Personnel P.G. and Pension DOP & T, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture
Research (ICAR) Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The Director General, Indian Council of
Agriculture Research, ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi.
5. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute
(IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
6. Incharge Livestock Production Research (C&B),
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P).
7. Ram Das, Mazdoor I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
8. Jaipal Kashyap, Mazdoor I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
9. Shri Ramu S/o Shri Munshi Lal Mazdoor, in the
Engineering Section I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
10. Shri Hori Lal, Mazdoor IVRI Izatnagar, Bareilly.
11. Shri Suresh (Fresh Appointment), Lab. Attendant
(Group 'D' Post) I.V.R.I. Izatnagar, Bareilly.
12. Shri Akhtar Ali, Lab. Attendant (Group 'D' post)
I.V.R.I Izatnagar, Bareilly.
13. Shri Naresh 'Temporary status' on the post of
Mazdoor, A.C. Section I.V.R.I, Izatnagar, Bareilly.
................ Respondents
By Adv: Mr N.P. Singh
Page 10 of 34
ORDER
All the ten OAs are being decided with the consent of counsels for the parties by a common order as the controversy involved in all the cases is similar and identical, merely having different period of working as casual labour would not in any way disturb the ultimate finding to be given by the Tribunal on the issue involved herein. The case of Krishna Kumar Vs. Union of India (O.A No. 330/00055/2015) is taken as leading case.
2. The applicant has filed this O.A. No. 55/2015 under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs -
"(i) Issue suitable order or direction by certiorari quashing the order dated 30.12.2014 shown as Annexure A-1 to this O.A.
(ii) Issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to implement the order/direction issued by the ICAR Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi on 23.11.1994 for grant of temporary status shown as Annexure A-13 to this O.A. in case of the applicant with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding to the respondent No. 5 to decide representation dated 23.7.2012, 31.5.2013, 15.5.2014 of the applicant by reasoned and speaking order according to policies, rules & law on the Page 11 of 34 matter as the same has been decided in the case of Daya Ram shown as Annexure A-4, A-2 & A-1 to this O.A.
(iv) issue suitable order or direction by certiorari quashing the order dated 16.5.2012 shown as Annexure A-3 to this O.A.
(v) Issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to follow up the agreement made with casual worker representative on 12.2.92, 23.7.94, 8.5.94 and 26.3.95 with regards regularization of casual labourers service as on group D posts including the applicant and to give them temporary status to the applicant.
(vi) Issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 05 to pass order in the case applicant as passed in the case of Sri Jaipal Kashyap C.L. as per CAT Allahabad & High Court judgment and also pass orders considering the CAT Allahabad, High Court, Allahabad and Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ram Das in similarly situated condition.
(vii) issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to pass order in the light of Industrial Tribunal Central Labour Court Kanpur Case No. 43/91 in the case of Smt. Chameli.
(viii) Issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 5 to implement all the policies, instruction and orders issued from time to time by the Govt. of India DOPT New Delhi & ICAR for regularization of Casual Page 12 of 34 Labour service on Group 'D' posts & grant temporary status to the applicant.
(ix) Issue suitable order or direction by way of mandamus commanding the respondent No.5 to place of all the records of casual labourers regularized on Group 'D' post and granted temporary status including the juniors to the applicant.
(x) issue any order or direction as the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case of the applicant.
(xi) to award the cost of the application to the applicant".
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case as stated in the O.A. are that the applicant had worked as Casual Labour between 14.3.1990 to 31.10.1993 in the Farm of I.V.R.I Izzatnagar Bareilly. It is stated that an agreement was entered into between Management and representatives of casual labourers on 12.2.1992 (Annexure A-10) regarding regularization of services but the respondents have failed to abide by the same. It has been alleged that the respondents have granted temporary status to several junior casual labourers but the representations preferred by the applicant has not yet been disposed of. It has further been alleged that the respondent No. 5 has wrongly rejected the claim of applicant for granting him Page 13 of 34 temporary status vide impugned order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure A-1). It is also stated that a list of casual labourers was prepared by the respondents on 30.8.1994 but the name of applicant was not included in the said list. The respondents have granted temporary status to some of casual labourers vide letter dated 23.11.1994 (Annexure A-17). The respondents have also issued a letter dated 25.2.1997 (Annexure A-20) to all the Subordinate Authorities to discourage engaging contract labour. One Ram Das Casual Labour had filed O.A. NO. 377 of 1996 against his disengagement in which a direction was issued to the respondents on 11.09.2001 (Annexure A-23) to reinstate him as temporary status casual labour. Shri Jai Pal Kashyap Casual Labour had also filed an O.A. NO. 502 of 2002 for grant of temporary status, which was decided in his favour on 30.5.2002 (Annexure A.24). He had also filed an O.A. No. 1076 of 2004 for granting him temporary status and the same has been decided in his favour on 19.10.2005 (Annexure A-
26). It is also stated that the applicant should be treated as the employee of respondents in view of judgment dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure A-27) delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, H.S.E.B Vs. Suresh and others. The applicant had submitted representations on Page 14 of 34 23.7.2012 (Annexure A-30), 31.5.2013 (Annexure A-32), and 15.5.2014 (Annexure A-35) for granting him temporary status as he has worked as a casual labour with I.V.R.I between 14.3.1990 and 31.10.1993 and presently he is working with the labour contractor of I.V.R.I and his juniors have already been given temporary status but the claim of the applicant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure A-1).
3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that the application is barred by the law of limitation as the applicant is seeking temporary status from the date when I.C.A.R had adopted the DOPT scheme dated 10.9.1993. The present O.A. is also barred under Rule 10 of C.A.T. Procedure Rules 1987 as the plural remedies cannot be claimed in one O.A. It is further stated that the applicant has sought to quash the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure A-1) by which he was required to produce the relevant documents before the Competent Authority which may prove his eligibility for awarding him temporary status. It is further stated that the applicant has wrongly tried to link his case with the Abolition of Contract Labour Act as there is no relation between such Act and the relief Page 15 of 34 sought for by the applicant. The applicant cannot be given temporary status as he does not fulfil the conditions of DOPT Scheme as adopted by ICAR for grant of temporary status. The applicant was engaged for specific work as casual labour and after completion of said work, he was disengaged. As per DOPT Scheme adopted by ICAR, the temporary status was to be conferred on all casual labourers who were in employment on the date of commencement of said OM and who had rendered service for a period of at least 240 days in a year. As the applicant does not fulfil the said conditions, he is not entitled to get temporary status. The applicant is also not entitled to get parity with the case of Ram Das as he was granted temporary status on the direction of Court. It is further stated that in the case of Jai Pal Kashyap Vs. UOI and others (O.A NO. 502 of 2002) the respondents were only directed to decide his representation and the said order is not applicable in the instant case. It is also stated that the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1076 of 2014 Jai Pal Kashyap Vs. UOI cannot be a precedent as the Hon'ble High Court has clearly made an observation in its order dated 29.5.2012 in W.P. (A) No. 36752 of 2001 that this judgment shall not be treated to be a precedent Page 16 of 34 in other cases. Thus, the decision in the case of Jai Pal Kashyap is restricted to Jai Pal Kashyap only and the applicant cannot seek parity from said decision. It is further stated that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, HSEB (Annexure A-27) is also not applicable in the present controversy as the said judgment is on the point of abolition of Contract Labour whereas the issue involved in the present OA is regarding grant of temporary status in the light of O.M dated 10.09.1993 issued by DOPT and adopted by ICAR. As the applicant has not fulfilled the twin conditions of O.M dated 10.09.1993, he is not entitled to get the temporary status and the benefits extended to Ram Das and Jai Pal Kashyap cannot be granted to him. It is further stated that the representations dated 23.7.2012 and 31.5.2013 were received along with representation dated 15.5.2014 which has rightly been disposed of by the impugned order dated 30.12.2014. It is further stated that as per registration record of casual workers maintained by the Institute, the applicant has worked as Casual Labour during under mentioned period in different spells -
1. 1990 - 198 days
2. 1991 - 137 days.
Page 17 of 34
3. 1992 - 151 days
4. 1993 - 143 days
5. 1994 - 50 days (under the cover of stay granted by the Tribunal on 19.4.1994 in OA No. 506 of 1996 (Daya Ram Vs. Union of India and others).
As the applicant was not working as casual labour on the effective date of DOPT scheme i.e. 1.9.1993 and he had not rendered 240 days period of work in any year, he is not entitled to get the benefit of said scheme and accordingly he was not granted temporary status. It has further been stated that by the impugned order dated 30.12.2014, the request of applicant for grant of temporary status was not rejected but he has only been asked to submit necessary documents for granting him temporary status.
4. In the rejoinder, the applicant has denied the contents of counter reply and reiterated the averments made in the O.A. and further stated that the reliefs claimed by the applicant are connected with each other and, therefore, O.A. is maintainable. It is further stated that the order of rejection has been passed by respondent No. 5 on 30.12.2014 and the O.A. has been filed on 3.8.2015 and therefore, there is no delay in filing Page 18 of 34 the O.A. It is further stated that presently the applicant is working with the Registered Contractor of I.V.R.I Izzatnagar Bareilly and he should be treated as the employee of respondent No. 5. As he has already worked with the respondent NO. 5 between 14.3.1990 and 31.10.1993, he is entitled to get the temporary status.
5. Heard Shri R.C. Pathak along with Shri Anil Kumar Singh counsel for the applicant and Shri N.P Singh, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicants are entitled for grant of temporary status under the OM dated 10.9.1993 as adopted by ICAR on 23.11.1994. He also claimed regularization of services of applicants in view of agreement entered between the representatives of labourers of IVRI and also in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, H.S.E.B. He relied upon the following the judgments -
(i) Ram Das Vs. Union of India and others O.A. No. 377/1996 decided by C.A.T Allahabad Bench on 11.09.2001.
Page 19 of 34
(ii) Jaipal Kashyap Vs. Union of India and others O.A. No. 502 of 2002 decided by C.A.T, Allahabad Bench on 30.05.2002.
(iii) Jaipal Kashyap Vs. Union of India and others O.A. No. 1076 of 2004 decided by C.A.T, Allahabad Bench on 19.10.2005.
(iv) Secretary, H.S.E.B Vs. Suresh & Ors. decided by Apex Court on 04.04.1999.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that applicants could not be given any relief under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and the applicants have failed to provide relevant documents required for granting temporary status as envisaged under Rule 4 (1) of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme 1993 and, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of temporary status. It has also been submitted that the orders passed in the case of Ram Das (supra) and Jaipal Kashyap (supra) are not applicable in the instant case. While relying upon the case of Union of India Vs. Gagan Kumar reported in 2005 (2) S.C. Services Law Judgments 350, it has been submitted that the scheme of 1993 is not an ongoing scheme and, therefore, provision of said scheme are not applicable to the case of applicants even if they are granted any relief by the Page 20 of 34 Labour Court in view of provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970.
8. In the case of Ram Das (supra), the applicant had claimed temporary status on the basis of OM dated 13.10.1983 issued by DOPT on the ground that he was engaged as casual labour on 12.8.1988 at IVRI Izzatnagar Bareilly and he had worked as casual mazdoor in broken spells. It was alleged that he was malafidely disengaged to appoint fresh casual labour in his place. It was the contention of applicant that due to artificial breaks, the applicant could not complete 240 days in the years 1988 to 1993 and, therefore, these artificial breaks, are liable to be ignored. The contention of respondents was that the issue of artificial breaks have already been settled by the Division Bench of C.A.T. Allahabad in OA No. 1336 of 1993 decided on 15.12.1994 and such claim has already been rejected and the OA NO. 387 of 1993 filed by the applicant was also disposed of with the same directions and observations as contained in order dated 15.12.1994 passed in OA NO 1336 of 1993 and thus the applicant cannot raise the same issue again. It was also contended on behalf of respondents that as the applicant had not completed 240 days in none of the years, he was Page 21 of 34 not entitled for temporary status. It was also contended that as the applicant had worked during 20.6.1993 to 21.5.1995 under the strength of interim order dated 23.4.1993 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1336/93, he could not claim the benefit of work done for 240 days during the period, said interim order was operative.
9. Relying on the order dated 15.12.1994 passed in OA NO. 1336/93, the Tribunal did not accept the period of artificial breaks in counting 240 days during a year and held that the applicant was not entitled to get any relief on this ground. In the said case, the services of applicant were terminated and he was re-engaged as casual labour w.e.f. 20.6.1993 to 31.5.1995 in view of stay order granted by the Tribunal. Interpreting the language of interim order dated 23.4.1993 and under the given circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the said interim order dated 23.4.1993 was not obligatory and it was open to the respondents to discontinue the applicant if the work was not there and in this way the Tribunal had taken into account the period of stay in calculating the total number of days in a year and found that the applicant had worked for 274 days in the year 1993 and 240 days in the year 1994 and declared him entitled for Page 22 of 34 temporary status under the provisions of OM dated 13.10.1983.
10. It is evident from the above, that the contention for counting the period of artificial breaks, has no force as it has already been rejected in the case of Ram Das (supra). The present applicants are also not claiming the relief of granting temporary status under the said OM dated 13.10.1983 but they are claiming temporary status under OM dated 10.9.1993, which has later been adopted by ICAR w.e.f. 23.11.1994. The facts and circumstances of instant case are entirely different. In the case of Ram Das, he was deemed to have completed 240 working days in a year but in the instant case, none of the applicants had fulfilled twin conditions for grant of temporary status to casual labourers as mentioned in clause 4 (1) of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme 1993. Thus the decision rendered in the case of Ram Das (supra) is inapplicable to the instant case.
11. In the case of Jai Pal Kashyap (supra) (Annexure A-
26) passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1076 of 2014 (Annexure A 26), the short controversy involved was Page 23 of 34 whether the applicant (Casual Labour) was entitled to the benefit of temporary status in accordance with the provision of OM dated 10.9.1993 of the DOPT which was adopted by the ICAR vide order dated 23.11.1994. In the said case, the claim of applicant was refused by the IVRI mainly on the ground that the applicant was not engaged by the IVRI w.e.f. 1.9.1993 to 10.9.1993 whereas it was admitted that the applicant had worked for 240 days in the year 1991 - 1992. It was contended on behalf of IVRI that as the applicant was not in employment on the date of the commencement of the scheme i.e. 1.9.1993 as such one of the twin conditions fastened to grant of temporary status remains unfulfilled and the applicant was not entitled to the temporary status. Considering the fact, that the applicant was continuously serving from February 1991 though with intermittent recess or breaks, and it was a coincidence that such an intermittent break fell during 1.9.1993 to 10.9.1993 for which the applicant could not be faulted and under these circumstances it was held that the applicant fulfilled the twin conditions of the OM dated 10.9.1993 and the IVRI was directed to process for grant of temporary status w.e.f. 1.9.1993. The order of this Tribunal was also affirmed by Hon'ble Page 24 of 34 Allahabad High Court in its order dated 29.5.1992 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36752 of 2001.
12. In the case of Secretary, HSEB (supra), the original applicants were engaged by the Contractor for proper/complete and hygienic cleaning, sweeping and removal of garbage from the main plant building of Haryana State Electricity Board at Panipat. As per contract, the Contractor was to be paid Rs.33,000/- per month with a stipulation to engage minimum 42 Safai Karmcharis for a period of one year w.e.f. 15.5.1987. Subsequently, the Safai Karmcharies claimed for absorption permanently on completion of 240 days in ayear with the Board. The matters were referred to the Conciliation Officer, Panipat culminating, however, in an order of reference by the State Government on 27.12.1988 to the Labour Court, Ambala which was subsequently transferred to Panipat. As the Safai Karmcharies were disengaged, the Labour Court upon consideration of the facts and evidence taken on record passed an award in favour of Safai Karmcharies declaring them entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service along with 10% back wages. Aggrieved by the order of Labour Court, the Safai Karmcharies had filed Page 25 of 34 various writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 24.1.1995. Hon'ble High Court affirmed the order of Labour Court and directed the Haryana Electricity Board to reinstate the Safai Karmcharies with continuity of service without back wages. Aggrieved by the orders passed by Labour Court as well as Hon'ble High Court, the Haryana Electricity Board approached Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the various provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, has held that the intent of legislature in the enactment of Act of 1970 has been to regulate contract labour and to provide for abolition in certain circumstances, however, the legislature did not feel it expedient to do away with the contract labour altogether since there are several fields of employment where it was not otherwise possible to have continuous employment and as such, regard being had to the necessities of the situation, the Act of 1970 provides for continuation of contract labour. It has also been held that the legislation therefore subserves twin purpose (i) to abolish the contract labour; and (ii) to regulate the Page 26 of 34 working conditions of contract labour wherever such employment is required in the interest of the industry. There is however, a total unanimity of judicial pronouncements to the effect that in the event, the contract labour is employed in an establishment for seasonal workings, question of abolition would not arise but in the event of the same being of perennial in nature, that is to say, in the event of the engagement of labour force through intermediary which is otherwise in the ordinary course of events and involves continuity in the work, the legislature is candid enough to record its abolition since, involvement of contractor may have its social evil of labour exploitation and thus the contractor ought to go out of scene bringing together the principal employer and the contract labourers rendering the employment as direct, and resultantly a direct employee. Keeping in view the nature of work being carried on by the Haryana Electricity Board, the nature of duties which were performed by the Safai Karmcharies, the continuity of the work for which they were employed and the fact that the wages were paid by the Haryana State Electricity Board who supervised and controlled not only the attendance but also discipline of the Safai Karmcharies in the discharge of their duties and Page 27 of 34 keeping in view the conditions of contract, Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the order of Labour Court in respect of reengagement of Safai Karmcharies.
14. In the case of Gagan Kumar (supra) relied upon by the respondents, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court that the conferment of temporary status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of the scheme and the casual labourer has completed 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 5 days of a week). It has further been clarified that this scheme is not ongoing scheme.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the above-referred cases, I am of the considered view that this Tribunal is not to deal the cases which come under the purview the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. I have also perused the last representation of the applicant dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure A-35) by which the applicant had claimed temporary status under OM dated 10.9.1993 and thus the Tribunal is only to see whether applicants are entitled to get temporary status under OM dated 10.09.1993 issued Page 28 of 34 by DOPT and adopted by ICAR vide order dated 23.11.1994.
16. Comparing the facts and circumstances of the case of Ram Das and Jai Pal Kashyap with the cases in hand, I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the present cases are differentiable to the facts and circumstances of the above referred cases. It is undisputed that in order to claim the benefit of OM dated 10.9.1993 which was adopted by ICAR on 23.11.1994, the twin conditions must be fulfilled namely, the casual labourers should have been in employment on the date of commencement of the scheme i.e. 1.9.1993 and they should have rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of offices having 5 days a week). It is also not disputed that in the case of Gagan Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the said scheme is not an ongoing scheme and conferment of temporary status is to be given to the casual labourers who were in employment as on the date of commencement of scheme and they had worked at least 240/206 days in a year.
Page 29 of 34
17. Undisputedly the present applicants did not fulfil the twin conditions enumerated under Clause 4 (1) of the Scheme which came into effect from 1.9.1993. Clause 4 (1) of the scheme reads as follows-
"4. Temporary status - (1) 'temporary' status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days' week)".
The following periods of working of present applicants with the IVRI have been stated by the respondents in their counter reply -
Sl. O.A. No. Applicants' Period of working
No name
1. O.A. No. Krishna 14.3.1990 198
55/15 Kumar to days
26.12.1990
21.3.1991 137
to days
01.01.1992
4.1.1992 to 151
31.12.1992 days.
01.01.1993 143
to days
31.10.1993
*12.03.1994 *50
to days.
30.4.1994
Page 30 of 34
*Under cover of
stay order passed
by Hon'ble
Tribunal on
19.4.1994 in OA
506/1994
2. OA No. Indresh 1.11.1988 42
915/13 Singh to days
14.12.1988
27.5.1989 98
to 5.9.1989 days.
21.3.1991 60
to days.
21.5.1991
8.2.1993 to 89
12.5.1993 days.
3. OA No. Ram Sewak 12.2.1991 99
820/13 to 4.5.1991 days.
14.4.1992 37
to days.
22.5.1992
23.5.1992 89
to days.
23.8.1992
08.2.1993 88
to days.
12.5.1993
4. OA NO. Jagan Lal 19.9.1989 89
916/13 to days.
16.12.1989
17.4.1990 90
to days.
15.7.1990
8.3.1991 to 71
21.5.1991 days.
11.8.1992 89
to days.
11.11.1992
Page 31 of 34
4.2.1993 to 122
31.12.1993 days
01.1.1994 79
to days.
30.6.1994
5. OA NO. Pooran Lal 10.3.1991 69
917/13 Kashyap to days
21.5.1991
17.11.1992 80
to days.
06.2.1993
27.4.1993 126
to days
31.10.1993
12.3.1994 81
to days
30.6.1994
6. OA No. Mohan 11.8.1987 18
1596/15 Singh to days.
28.8.1987
01.4.1988 159
to days.
31.12.1988
01.01.1989 137
to days.
27.11.1989
25.2.1990 91
to days.
31.12.1990
01.01.1991 104
to days.
30.09.1991
16.5.1992 81
to days.
10.8.1992
7. OA No. Nand 01.6.1987 117
897/15 Kishore to days.
31.12.1988
Page 32 of 34
1.1.1988 to 107
13.7.1988 days.
1.2.1989 to 158
16.11.1989 days.
6.3.1991 to 18
7.11.1991 days.
8. OA No. Bheem Sen 13.7.1988 99
56/15 to days.
23.10.1988
01.12.1988 190
to days.
8.10.1989
02.02.1990 99
to days.
15.5.1990
13.5.1989 99
to days.
23.8.1991
12.3.1994 46
to days.
30.4.1994
9. OA No. Vijay Pal 1.6.1987 to 97
186/15 9.9.1987 days.
11.3.1989 99
to days.
21.6.1989
25.2.1990 89
to days
10.5.1991
28.1.1991 99
to days
10.5.1991
13.5.1991 99
to days.
23.8.1991
10. OA Daya Ram 01.01.1986 188
Page 33 of 34
No.187/15 to days
17.12.1986
06.05.1987 79
to days
27.07.1987
01.04.1988 99
to days
12.7.1988
11.3.1989 99
to days
21.6.1989
03.09.1990 45
to days
19.10.1990
20.10.1990 96
to days
27.1.1991
01.06.1991 70
to days
11.8.1991
07.01.1992 90
to days
09.04.1992
21.3.1994
to 39
30.4.1994 days
18. It is evident from the above chart that none of the applicants completed 240/206 days in a year and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim the benefit of temporary status under OM dated 10.09.1993 adopted by ICAR on 23.11.1994. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Page 34 of 34 Tribunal and as no applicant has been able to prove that he had fulfilled the twin conditions as envisaged under clause 4 (1) of Casual Labourers (grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme 1993.
19. Accordingly, OA No. 330/00055 of 2015, O.A. No. 330/00056 of 2015, O.A. No. 330/00186 of 2015, O.A. No. 330/00187 of 2015, O.A. No. 330/00820 of 2013, OA No. 330/00915 of 2013, O.A. No. 330/00916 of 2013, O.A. No. 330/00917 of 2013, O.A. No. 330/001596 of 2015 and OA. No. 330/00897 of 2015 are dismissed. No order as to costs.
20. Copy of this common judgment shall be placed on the file of each of the OAs which have been clubbed together and have been disposed of.
Member (J) Manish/-