M/S Damodar Valley Corporation Through ... vs Their Workmen Represented By Dvc Staff ... on 22 August, 2025

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Damodar Valley Corporation Through ... vs Their Workmen Represented By Dvc Staff ... on 22 August, 2025

Bench: Sanjay Prasad

                                             Neutral Citation No.
                                           ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             W.P.(L) No. 4791 of 2006
                     ---------

M/s Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, having its Registered Office at DVC Towers, V.I.P. Road Kolkata-700054 ..... Petitioner Versus

1.Their Workmen represented by DVC Staff Association, Dhanbad Unit

2.The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondents

----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner     : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Senior Advocate
                           Mr. Srijit Chowdhary, Advocate
For the Resp No.1      : Ms Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate
                           Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Suresh Kumar,
                           S.C. (L&C)-II
                           Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh,
                           A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II
                     -----------
                   JUDGMENT           Pronounced on 22.08.2025
C.A.V.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Management Company for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order of the Reference made by the Government vide notification No. 3/D1-18029/96-L.E. & T.-934, and to set aside the Award dated 29.04.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, learned Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in Ref. Case No.9/96.

2. In brief, the case of the Management of Damodar Valley Corporation (for short Management- D.V.C.), as stated in its written statement, is that there was no material before the State Government and the State Government without applying its mind and without 1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) being satisfied, referred the dispute for adjudication and the reference has been made on misrepresentation of facts and misconception, hence the reference is bad in law.

It is further stated that there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties. It is further case of the management that the concerned workers are not casual workers employed directly by the D.V.C. rather they are workers of Contractors and they work on the job contract system under the control and supervision of one Gang Leader. They choose the Gang Leader from amongst themselves and their work is measured and entered in the Measurement Book. The payment is received by the Gang Leader and he distributes the money to his companion workers who are employed by the Gang Leader. The system includes award of work through verbal negotiations with the party leaders to complete the job as per technical estimate and on completion of work, measurement is taken and complete payment is made as per scheduled rate against each item of work done. It is further stated that they are engaged at Panchet under land scaping and colony beautification through job contract system. The work of land scaping and colony beautification is of seasonal nature and the job is awarded to Gang Leader, who is the real contractor on mutually agreed terms verbally and payment is made to the party leader through Hand Receipt on the basis of work done duly measured and recorded in the measurement book. These job contractors are not on the roll of D.V.C. and they are not casual labourers engaged by D.V.C. It is also stated and asserted that the persons 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) named in the Reference accept this position that they are working on job contract basis. It is well settled principle that the contract labour cannot claim regularization when they are paid their wages through contractor and they cannot raise industrial dispute either before or after abolition of contract labour. It is further stated that D.V.C. has got registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Contract Labour Act) and the Director, Soil Conservation Department at Hazaribagh is the registered Principal Employer as per Contract Labour Act and the Gang Leader/contractor is employing less than 20 workers, so the licence is not required. It is also stated that even if there is no registration and the licence as required under the Contract Labour Act then in that case the only consequence of non-compliance either by the principal employer, of Section 7 or by the contractor of Section 12 of the said Act, is that they are liable to prosecution under the Act but the employees employed through the contractor cannot be deemed to be the employees of the Principal Employer. The concerned person are not employees of D.V.C. They are working under a genuine contract system. It is further stated that these persons are not doing similar nature of job as permanent employees. The D.V.C. does not have control and supervision of their work and their services are not essential and the management is not aware as to who are the persons, who are working on job contract basis with their Gang Leader and the Gang Leader/contractor is responsible for the maintenance of records etc. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) It has also been denied that these persons have been working for more than a decade. It is further stated that Chotan Mahto and 11 others, whose names find place in the reference filed in a writ bearing C.W.J.C. No.2303 of 1994(R) before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi Bench, wherein they admitted that they were engaged on job contract basis and their payments were made through Gang Leader and in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24.01.1995 passed in the said writ petition, the management passed a speaking order, the photostat copy of which has been annexed with the written statement of the Management- Petitioner. It is further stated that these job contract labourers are estopped from changing their nature and character of job and they cannot be termed as casual labour in view of their own admission in the said writ petition. It is further stated that the concerned workers are not entitled to regularization and they cannot claim equal pay for equal work and they are not entitled to any relief.

3. The case of the Respondent-Workmen, in brief, as stated in written statement is that D.V.C. was created in the year 1948. The aim and objectives of the D.V.C. are flood control, irrigation, power generation, transmission and other social welfare activities. For the purpose of flood control, a number of dams were constructed over Damodar river and its tributaries. Panchet dam is one of the dams constructed by the D.V.C. Besides plantation jobs carried out by the forestry workers to arrest erosion of soil on the catchment areas, 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) ornamental plantation jobs are also undertaken by the D. V. C in the colony for its beautification and gardening. The concerned workmen are daily rated workers engaged in gardening, nursery, land scaping, project beautification and environmental pollution control jobs of Panchet colony. It is further stated that there are three categories of service in D.V.C in regular establishments, i.e. Grade 'A', 'B' and 'C' at the relevant time of raising the dispute. The employees of Grade 'C' are designated as Mazdoor, Khalasi and Helper etc. The Mazdoors were engaged in different jobs in the colony maintenance under civil maintenance division in the pay scale of Rs. 195-3-213-4- 245-5-275/-. The concerned workmen were termed as job contract labourers and used to be paid through Hand Receipts. It is further case of the workmen that the job contract system is a misnomer and hoax with the only intention to deprive the concerned workmen of their legitimate and rightful dues. Four labourers out of the concerned 43 (forty three) labourers are treated as gang leaders and termed as contractors. Every month so called contractors called gang leaders are changed. There is no term of contract between the D.V.C. and the alleged contractors.

It is further case of the workmen that such system of a job contract of forestry workers was also in vogue at Bokaro and Chandrapur Thermal Power Stations for identical jobs. A Tripartite settlement in the form of minutes of discussion was held between the representatives of the workmen and the D. V. C. management on 21.03.1984. It was agreed that such 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) labourers would be considered as casual labourers of D.V.C. and it was also agreed that employer-employee relationship existed between such labourers and D. V. C. The guideline was issued by the D.V.C on 15.9.77 for regularisation of casual workers. In pursuance of the said policy panels were prepared in the year 1978, 1986 and 1988 for regularisation of those casual labourers but no such panel was prepared in respect of the concerned workmen and they were deprived of the opportunity of regularisation of their services in pursuance of the policy adopted by D.V.C. It is further stated that although the concerned workmen are termed as job contract workers under Gang Leaders, attendance of the workers is maintained by D.V.C. Officers. The concerned workmen are required to report daily to the office of the Assistant Forest Ranger for their attendance and the Assistant Forest Ranger allots jobs to the individual worker and the Gang. Mali and Mazdoor are also appointed on regular establishment by D.V.C. management under Civil Division for maintenance of gardens in the colony. On regular establishment, the pay scale of Mazdoors was Rs. 195-3- 213-4-245-5 -5-275/- at the relevant time. It is also stated that the concerned workmen are engaged in perennial nature of jobs. It is further stated that in identical case involving 81 (eighty one) workmen of BTPS and CTPS the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City passed an Award in favour of the workmen directing the DVC management for regularisation of all those workers in regular Cadre of Mazdoor on completion of 240 days of their joining. Therefore, the concerned workmen are 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) entitled to the benefits of regularisation in the regular scale of pay of Mazdoor in Grade 'C' category on completion of 240 days of their services as daily rated workers in the relevant time scale of pay.

4. Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner-Management, assisted by Mr. Srijit Chowdhary, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Management and Mrs. Diksha Dwivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent-Workmen and Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II for the State, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II.

5. It is submitted by learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management that the impugned Award dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is submitted that the entire Award has been passed on the basis of wrong facts. It is submitted that the Job Contract Labourers cannot claim to be the employee of the Corporation and as such the Petitioner- Corporation cannot be directed to absorb the mazdoors on regular cadre of mazdoors, though the word regularization means not to get regular appointment but to get the pay at par with regular employees of the Corporation.

It is submitted that the mazdoors, who were engaged in the job which is not an Industry of the Petitioner-Management then in such case there could not have been any Industrial dispute as the State could not have referred the dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) It is submitted that from the evidence it is established that the Respondents were working as a contract Labourers.

It is submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court directing to regularize in permanent Cadre of the lowest category of employees under D.V.C. with effect from 09.10.1996 in otherwise regular cadre of Mazdoors is in violation of the Provision of Article-16 of the Constitution of India as taking the job from Respondents for the purpose of regular appointment, as such the order of absorption/regularization in regular cadre of Mazdoor is vitiated.

It is submitted that the Award passed on the basis of wrong assessment of facts is not maintainable in law. It is submitted that the Tribunal/Court cannot pass an award totally contrary to the settled position of law. It is submitted that the daily wages workers do not hold any post.

It is submitted that it is nowhere pleaded by the Workmen that they are working on sanctioned posts and they were getting the pay-scale and they were validly appointed by the Management. It is submitted that the Workmen were working like casual labourers and they are not required to work every day and their services are taken as and when required.

It is submitted that the daily wages workers in the absence of holding any post cannot claim any comparison with the other staff for any or all purposes including a claim for equal pay for equal work.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) It is submitted that the workers were employed by the Contractor and the Management had never appointed them and they are working on their own through their Contractor. It is submitted that neither the posts were advertised or the concerned Workmen were working on the sanctioned posts nor they were discharging similar duties as performed by the permanent workmen or by the permanent employees and as such direction for regularization by the Labour court is not sustainable in the eye of law.

It is submitted that the Job performed is not equal so there is no question of equal pay for equal work.

It is submitted that the claim for equal pay for equal work cannot be entertained in respect of the workmen who do not belong to cadre post under the Rules.

It is submitted that the duty hours and other things are similar between the group of employees claiming it and other group of employees who are not engaging the benefit.

It is submitted that in view of the recent decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Award passed by the Tribunal/Court is not maintainable in the eye of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner- Management, in support of their case has relied upon certain judgments, which are as follows:

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

(i) Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639,

(ii) State of Gujarat and Others Versus R.J. Pathan and Others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 394, at Para 10 and 11,

(iii) Government of Tamil Nadu and Another versus Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 393, at Para 57,

(iv) K. Lubna and Others Versus Beevi and Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 524, at Para 10,

(v) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Versus Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, at Para 43, 44, 47, 53 and

54.

It is submitted that there are errors apparent on the face of the record in as much as the impugned Award cannot be sustained in the eye of law, hence the impugned Award may be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is fit and proper and no illegality has been committed. It is submitted that the Workmen are working for several years continuously and hence they are found fit for regularization and equal pay for equal work by the 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the case of Uma Devi (Supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case because the Workmen have already completed more than 10 years of service before the judgment was pronounced in the Uma Devi (Supra) case.

It is submitted that there was a guideline for taking service of the Workmen by the Management D.V.C. and which has been marked as Ext. W-2, which is circular dated 15.09.1977 issued by the D.V.C. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has referred to certain judgments, which are as follows:-

(i) Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh and Others reported in 1999(1)L.L.J. 1086,

(ii) Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. Reported in 2003(6) SCC 528,

(iii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. And ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. Reported in 2001(1) SCC 1,

(iv) The Management of Agnigundala Lead Project Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and Ors. V. Hindustan Zinc Workers Union and Anr.

reported in 1988 (II) LLJ 318, 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

(v) Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr. V. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare and Anr.

reported in 1996 (I) LLJ 1223,

(vi) General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and Ors. reported in 1988 (II) LLJ 109,

(vii) The Dharwad District, P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396,

(viii) Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India reported in 1988(I) LLJ 370.

9. Perused the Records of this case received from Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi and considered the submission of both the sides.

10. Vide Notification No. 2/D1-18025/96- L&E-934 dated 9th October, 1996, Government of Bihar, Department of Labour, Employment & Training referred the industrial dispute existing between the management of M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation, Bhabani Bhawan, Alipore, Kolkata and their workmen represented by D.V.C. staff Association, Dhanbad, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section(1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Tribunal for adjudication. The terms of Reference was as follows:-

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) "Whether not to make permanent the 43 (Forty three) casual Labourers mentioned in annexure 'A' of the Forestry Department and not to provide pay scale equivalent to permanent Labourer of establishment by the management of M/s D.V.C. are justified? If not, what relief those casual Labourers are entitled to?"

Annexure-A contains the name of all 43 workmen.

11. The Management-Petitioner in support of its case has got examined Two witnesses, who are as follows:-

(i) MW-1, namely Jagdish Tiwari, Asst. Forest Ranger

(ii) MW-2, namely Shyam Charan Mandal

12. The Management-Petitioner, in support of its case, got marked certain documents as Exhibits, which are as follows.

(i) Ext.M-1 is Hand receipt in respect of Sri Anand Tudu dated 31.08.1997,

(ii) Ext.M-1/1 is Hand receipt in respect of Sri Anil Mandal dated 31.08.1997

(iii) Ext.M-1/2 is Hand receipt in respect of Sri Rebi Murmu dated 31.08.1997

(iv) Ext.M-1/3 is Hand receipt in respect of Sri Digal Roy dated 31.08.1997

(v) Ext.M-1/4 is Hand receipt in respect of Sri Durgadhan Mahto dated 31.08.1997

(vi) Ext.M-1/5 is Hand receipt in respect of Sri Amar Mandal dated 31.08.1997 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

(vii) Ext. M-1/6 is Hand receipt in respect of Shyam Lal Marandi dated 31.08.1997

(viii)Ext.M-2 is Copy of measurement book No. 74 from Page No. 67 to 80 dated 31.08.1997,

(ix) Ext.M-3 is Copy of revised schedule of rates for land scaping and plantation in Forestry Section of D.V.C. (Based on calculation @ 39.70 per labour/day for Bihar State (3 Pages) 08.02.1996.

(x) Ext.M-4 is Copy of letter No.FCR (E) Technical Estimate/900 dated 31.03.1997 along with 11 Nos. Technical Estimate.

(xi) Ext.M-5 to M-5/28 are Imprest Cash Account No.s 735 to 764.

13. The Respondent-Workman, in support of its case, got examined two witnesses, who are as follows:-

(i) W.W. No.1-Uma Pandey, Assistant Typist and

(ii) W.W. No.2-Utpal Chakraborty,

14. The Respondent-Workman, in support of its case, has got marked certain documents as the exhibits, which are as follows:-

(i) Ext.W-1 is Minutes of discussion held between the management and the representatives of workmen dated 21.03.1984,

(ii) Ext.W-2 is Office Circular dated 15.09.1977,

(iii) Ext.W-3 is Office Memorandum dated 28.05.1986,

(iv) Ext.W-3/1 is Office Memorandum dated 25.05.1988,

(v) Ext.W-4 is Sanction order no. 370 dated 20.08.1992, 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

(vi) Ext.W-5 is Photostat of certified copy of Award dated 21.02.1994 passed in Reference Case No.05/91,

(vii) Ext.W-6 is Letter No.02 dated 04.02.2000 and

(viii) Ext.W-6/1 is Letter No.042 dated 01.09.2001,

(ix) Ext.W-7 and Ext.W-7/1 to Ext.W-7/29 are Original copies of Imprest cash account of different period.

(x) Ext.W-8 and Ext.W-8/1 to Ext.W-32 are M.B. No.s of different period,

(xi) Ext.W-9 and Ext.W-9 to Ext.W-9/74 are Hand Receipts.

15. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, vide the impugned Award dated 29.04.2006, has allowed the Reference in favour of the Workmen-Respondent No.1, referred by D.V.C. Staff Association, hence the instant writ petition has been filed.

16. The Tribunal has observed in Para-13 of its Award that from the evidence of M.W.1 and M.W.2, it would appear that there is no written agreement between the Party Leader and the Management. Even M.W.1 has admitted that the Party Leaders changed every month and the work of concerned workmen was supervised by the officers or employees of the D.V.C. According to Management, the Gang Leader is the Contractor, but there is no agreement between the so- called Contractor and the D.V.C. and the so called Contractor is changed every month. The Tribunal has rejected the case of the D.V.C. by observing that it is not understandable as to how the Gang Leader is treated as the Contractor without any agreement and 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Contract. Even in the selection of Contractor the D.V.C. has no say.

The Tribunal in Para 15 of its judgment, after analyzing the statement of witnesses has held that the concerned workmen have been working since 1982 and they work on the direction and under the supervision of the Assistant Forest Ranger who makes their attendance also. Thus, there is direct relationship between the Management and the Workman.

The learned Tribunal further held in Para 17 that the Management of the D.V.C. and the so-called Contractor are not registered and the so- called Contractor has no license as required under the provisions of the Contract Labour Act, hence, in the present case the so-called Contractor and the So- called contract system is merely a camouflage.

The learned Tribunal further held that the D.V.C. is the Employer of the concerned workmen.

The learned Tribunal in Para 22 of its Award has further held in the light of Ext.W-5, Ext.W-6, Ext.W-6/1, Ext. W-8 to Ext.W-8/32, Ext.W- 7to Ext.W-7/29 and Ext.W-9 to Ext. W-9/74, Ext.M-1 to Ext. M-1/6, Ext. M-5 to Ext.M-5/28 that the mode of payment clearly suggests direct relationship between the D.V.C. and the concerned Workmen.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) The learned Tribunal has decided Issue No. II by observing that there is relationship of Employer and Employee between the Management and the concerned Workmen.

The learned Tribunal has further decided Issue No.III in favour of the Workman by coming to the conclusion that there exists relationship of employer and employees between the D.V.C. and the 43 concerned workmen and they have been working as casual workers for more than two decades in perennial nature of job under D.V.C., hence they are entitled to be regularized in permanent cadre of lowest category of employees under D.V.C. They are also entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the permanent workmen of the lowest grade with effect from 09.10.1996 with all consequential benefits.

17. So far as oral evidence is concerned, W.W.1 is Uma Pandey, who was working in D.V.C. as an Assistant Typist and is also Secretary of the D.V.C. Staff Association, Panchet, stated during his evidence that for beautification of colony in Panchet, the Forest Department used to do the work of tree plantation, flower plantation and to stop erosion of the soil and which are being done by the 43 workmen since the year 1982 and similar nature of work was also being done in Mython, Bokaro, Tilaiya and Chadrapura. He further stated that although the Workmen were not being appointed in writing but they were being 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) appointed orally and they were working on the order of the Assistant Forest Ranger and these workmen report every day in the Office of the D.V.C. in the morning at 7 a.m., except Sundays and the Assistant Forest Ranger posted there used to distribute the work. Accordingly, these Workmen worked from 7 a.m. to 12 Noon and thereafter, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and their attendance were also being taken by the Assistant Forest Ranger.

He further stated that they get salary by Hand Receipt at the minimum rate fixed by the Government and their bills were being prepared every month on the basis of actual work done by them. There were Four Gang Leaders among those 43 workmen and the Gang Leaders were being changed on every month and new Gang Leaders were being Chosen every month. There is group of Workmen for each/every Gang Leader and Hand Receipts are being prepared in the name of every Gang Leader, but payment is made to every Workmen personally. He further stated that money is brought from the Division by the Assistant Forest Ranger through the Bank by means of Cheque and where one Register is maintained, which contained the name of all Workmen and payment is being done as per their respective signature or thumb impression by the Assistant Forest Ranger (i.e. the employee of the D.V.C.). He clearly stated that there is no Contractor between the 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Workmen and the Assistant Forest Ranger and the Workmen never worked under any Contractor and these Workmen worked for the whole year. There is a provision in the budget of the Panchet Dam Project for providing with the amount for the wages of these Workmen.

18. He further stated that the Union has raised the demand in the month of March, 1991 and they have demanded that these Workmen be also appointed as regular Workmen of minimum category in the D.V.C. The minimum category is 'Group C' in D.V.C.

19. During cross-examination, he stated that he is working in Panchet since the year 1977 and prior to this also he worked in Panchet. He started job as an Office bearer in Staff Association since the year of his appointment.

20. Thereafter, the witness on his own further stated that he started working in the year 1994 and came into the Association in the year 1995, hence, he was aware of all 43 Workmen, but later on he again stated that it is difficult to know everyone. The present dispute related to Workmen of Panchet Dam and where 43 workmen are presently working and he could not say as to how the Gang Leader was elected, however, the Workman of D.V.C do not do those works which are being done by these Workmen.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) He further stated that payment is being done by Hand Receipt and money is brought from the Bank by the Assistant Forest Ranger. There is participation of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer (Civil) in making payment, however, the witness on his own cannot say that actual payment is done by the Assistant Forest Ranger.

He had denied the suggestion that Assistant Forest Ranger gave money to the Gang Leader. He denied the suggestion of signature of the Gang Leader in the Hand Receipt. The witness on his own says that the Gang Leader put his signature in the payment Register and the Workmen did not sign in the Register as the Gang Leader and such Gang Leader put his signature or thumb impression on receiving payment like an ordinary workman. The name of the Gang Leader was not shown in the Hand Receipt, however, all the 43 Workmen, one by one, becomes the Gang Leader. He has denied the suggestion for doing work on the basis of job contract.

During further cross-examination he has shown ignorance about the Measurement Book and the work done by the Workmen entered into Measurement Book. He further stated that the workmen are being paid at the rate of minimum wages fixed by the Central Government on monthly basis except on Sundays and on the day of absence.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) He denied the suggestion that there is name of all 43 Workmen in the Hand Receipt. However, he stated that name of only Four Gang Leaders was there. During further cross-examination he stated that apart from Panchet the Colony beautification is done in Mython, Bokaro and other places and in those areas also such work are being taken from Workmen like these Workmen. However, the permanent Workmen did not do these works at those places. He denied the suggestion for giving false evidence.

21. Therefore, it is evident that W.W.1 is the Secretary of the D.V.C. Staff Association, Panchet and he had vividly described the work culture adopted by the D.V.C. by taking work from these 43 Workmen. He also clearly stated that no Contractor was employed by the D.V.C. for beautification of the Colony and he was not being confronted by the Management by the name of any Contractor, who had taken the work from these Workmen.

Thus, W.W.1 has fully supported the case of the Workmen. The evidence of W.W.1 clearly shows that the Workmen were working in D.V.C. since the year 1982 till the date of evidence on 25.06.2003, i.e. for more than eight (08) years in the D.V.C.

22. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of W.W.1, it is evident that he has fully supported the case of the Workmen and had clearly stated that they 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) have directly worked under the Management of DVC and they have received payment from the Assistant Forest Ranger of the D.V.C., who used to obtain cash amount from the Bank in question and the wages of the Workmen were being paid by the Assistant Forest Ranger of D.V.C. after obtaining the signature or thumb impression of the Workmen in the Register maintained by the D.V.C. He has directly denied that he has worked under any Contractor engaged by the D.V.C. Even during cross-examination the Petitioner-Management had not pointed out any specific name of the Contractor under whom the concerned 43 Workmen had worked. The Petitioner- Management could have pointed out during cross- examination that the Contractor, namely 'X' or Contractor 'Y' or Contractor 'Z' and so on were engaged by the D.V.C. for taking work from the workmen on contractual basis, but they failed to do so.

Thus, the evidence of W.W.1 fully supports the case of the Workmen. It is also evident from the evidence of W.W.1, namely Uma Pandey that he was working as Assistant Typist of the D.V.C. and thus, he was well aware about the manner of work being taken by the D.V.C. Management from the Workmen.

23. W.W.2 is Utpal Chakraborty, who is a Labour in the Forest Department of D.V.C., has stated that he along with 43 Workmen worked in the Forest 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Department of Panchet since the year 1983 and they were working there from 7.00 a.m. to 12.00 Noon and then 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. except for Sundays and national holidays. They used to do the work of Nursery, beautification of Colony and Tree Plantation. They used to go to the Forest Office every day and where they are being instructed by the Assistant Forest Ranger as to what work is to be done and he would distribute all the work to the Workmen and he also used to supervise the work and he also made their Hazri. They are getting minimum wage every day fixed by the Central Government and they are getting payment at such rate. They are being paid monthly and they used to do the work for the whole year. At the time of payment their signatures are being taken on the Hand Receipt and some Workmen used to put their signature and the Assistant Forest Ranger used to take signature of some Workmen in the Hand Receipt and sometimes the name of other Workmen was not shown in the Hand Receipt. He further clarified and stated that in the Hand Receipt of 43 Workmen, sometime the name of one Workmen is there and sometimes the name of other Workmen is shown there and so on. In every month the name of the Workmen was changed in the Hand Receipt. Money is brought from the Bank by the Assistant Forest Ranger and he used to pay all the Workmen by taking their signature in the payment Register. The 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Workmen who put his signature in the Hand Receipt also put his signature in the Register after taking the payment and one Hand Receipt is being prepared for less than Rs.10,000/-. He further stated that even permanent Malis and Labours etc. also work for gardening in Panchet in the Forest Department. He stated that even in Bokaro and Chandrapura such Workmen do such work which they do.

He stated that they are working since the year 1982 continuously and they worked for more than 240 days in one year, hence, they desire that they may also be made permanent in the D.V.C. and they should be given salary and other facilities like regular employees.

24. During cross-examination he again stated to be working in Panchet since the year 1983 and he was one of the many 43 Workmen and his date of Birth is 25.12.1959 and he was aware of all 43 Workmen.

In question and answer regarding difference between Gardening and Beautification of Colony he stated that Gardening is a part of Colony beautification and they used to plant trees and flowers at the roadside for the beautification of Colony. He further stated that the permanent employees do the work of only Gardening inside the garden, but they, i.e. those 43 Workmen used to plant fruit trees in the quarter and they used to work for the whole year. He 24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) admitted to have passed B.A. and well versed in English and Hindi writing and reading. He admitted of putting his signature in the Hand Receipt, but he stated that they were asked to put their signature on the Hand Receipt for giving them payment and if they did not obey their order, then they were asked not to report for the work.

They have raised the Industrial Dispute orally through the Union.

25. He had denied the suggestion for putting his signature as Gang Leader in the Hand Receipt and had shown ignorance about the preparation of Hand Receipt. However, he is aware that Hand Receipt is being prepared for less than Rs.10,000/- and name of only one Workman is mentioned in one Hand Receipt and who puts his signature, but money is not paid for putting signature on Hand Receipt, rather money is being paid for putting signature on the Register.

He has not seen the Measurement Book and he is not aware as to who put their respective signature in the Measurement Book. There is no oral agreement between D.V.C. and Workmen for doing the Work and Measurement is not done for the work done. He stated that the name of almost all Workmen came in Hand Receipt one by one, however, Assistant Forest Ranger never asked them not to come to work.





                       25
                                                  Neutral Citation No.
                                               ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )




               He   had    denied       the   suggestion          that

Panchet is a small Unit but stated that Panchet is a small Unit in comparison to Mython, but there is work for the whole year in Panchet and the work of Colony beautification and the beautification of Office premises is done for the whole year. He further stated that even after putting his signature on the Hand Receipt, money is not paid to them and the said money remained with the Assistant Forest Ranger. He had denied the suggestion of giving false evidence.

26. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of W.W.2, it is evident that he has fully supported the case of the Workmen. He also stated that he is working in the Forest Department of D.V.C. under the control of Assistant Forest Ranger since the year 1983. He has also described the working and procedure of D.V.C.

27. Ext. W-1, i.e. the minutes of discussion held between the Management and the representative of Workmen dated 21.03.1984, which reveals that one N.R. Konar and B.D. Roy, Assistant Director (Technical) were representatives of the Management, whereas one Banwari Ram, Jodhi Mahto and Mukhlal Mahto were the representatives of the Workman of D.V.C., Chandrapura Thermal Power Station in presence of one Shri Chandrakant, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hazaribagh regarding adjustment of the Workmen of the D.V.C., Chandrapura, C.T.P.C., 26 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) however, this Ext.W-1 is not relevant for the Workmen as it mainly relates to D.V.C., C.T.P.C.

28. Ext.W-2 is the Office Circular dated 15.09.1977 issued by the D.V.C., Calcutta with regard to Scheme for recruitment of Class III Posts along with 100 points roster of reservation amongst different categories of Class III post in D.V.C. From perusal of Annexure-1 to said Circular dated 15.09.1977, i.e. Ext.W-2, it reveals that as per roster, 20% of Class III posts is fixed for Retrenched persons, 15% Class III posts have been fixed for compassionate appointment of sons and daughters and 15% Class III posts is fixed for retiring Class III employees' son/daughter, 15% Class III posts is for casual employees. 15% Class III posts for displaced persons and 20% Class III Posts are for Apprentices.

The Workmen wanted similar treatment like Class III posts of Ext.W-2, i.e. Office Circular dated 15.09.1977, but the said scheme was not floated by the D.V.C.-Management for any Class-IV posts or for any post on which any Workman is working

29. Ext. W-3 is the Office Memorandum dated 28.05.1986 with regard to appointment of Group-C posts issued by the General Manager of the D.V.C. Calcutta.

Ext. W-3/1 is Office Memorandum for appointment of Group 'Ç' Post dated 25.05.1988.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

30. Ext. W-5 is the photocopy of the certified copy of the Award dated 21.02.1994 passed in one another Reference Case No.05 of 1991 by which the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City has decided the Reference in favour of the Workmen by observing that the Workmen are entitled to regularization in regular cadre of Regular Mazdoors on completion of 240 days of their joining in D.V.C. as Daily Mazdoor and they were also held to be entitled to the wages and other benefits which the similarly situated Workmen employed on regular basis is entitled to. The Labour Court had directed the Management of D.V.C. to absorb the concerned workmen in the regular cadre of Mazdoor with retrospective effect and also to pay them difference of wages of regular Mazdoor.

Thus, Ext. W-5 also supports the case of the Workmen.

31. Ext. W-6 is the Letter dated 04.02.2000, issued by Dr. Sengupta, Zonal Officer, Zone-V, Mithon to all the Assistant Forest Rangers, Maithon/Panchet/Durgapur, by which he has instructed to follow the industrial dispute regarding weekly rest to the Forest labourers and also with regard to payment of minimum wages fixed by the Government and approved by the Corporation.

32. Ext. W-6/1 is the Letter dated 01.09.2001 issued by the Acting Director of the Office 28 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) of the Soil Conservation Department, Hazaribagh, by which it has been informed to Shri S.R. Bardhan, Working President, D.V.C. Staff Association, Hazaribagh that job contract labourers engaged and working in the Colony beautification works at Maithon, Panchet and D.T.P.C. are being paid wages at the approved rate of the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi. No payment is made to the labourers for the weekly rest days.

33. Similarly, Ext.W-7 to W-7/12 respectively are the Imprest Cash Account of D.V.C. of Division Forestry, Sub-Division, Mython Range showing payment of wages of job contract for the works for the period from 19.01.2002 to 16.01.2003.

34. Ext. W-7/13 and Ext.W-7/14 and Ext.W-7/15 respectively, Imprest Cash Account, D.V.C., dated 20.02.2003, have been issued by the Assistant Forest Ranger, Panchet in respect of 49 Workers, which includes these 43 Workmen.

Ext. W-7/16, W-7/17 are the Imprest Cash Account of D.V.C. dated 20.02.2003 issued by the Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C. for payment of 19 Workmen.

35. Ext. W-7/18, 7/19, 7/20 respectively are payment of 47 person including these 43 workmen.

36. Ext. W-7/21 shows payment to 10 Workmen.





                         29
                                             Neutral Citation No.
                                          ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )




              There   are     other   receipts         up          to

26.10.2003 issued by the Assistant Forest Ranger, which have been marked as Ext. W-7/22 to 7/29 before the learned Tribunal, which are also Imprest Cash Account issued by the D.V.C. in respect of these Workmen.

37. Therefore, it is evident that even after filing of Reference by the Government in respect of grievance of these 43 Workmen in the year 1996, the Workmen continued to do work for the D.V.C. and for which they had been paid till the year 2003.

38. M.W.1 is Jagdish Tiwary, who was posted as Assistant Forest Ranger in the Forest Department of Petitioner-D.V.C. He stated during his evidence that though there is dispute with regard to the Management and the Workmen, but he is not aware as to how many Workmen are involved in the dispute. The Workmen works in season in Panchet and on the basis of job contract. He further stated that there is no written agreement between the D.V.C. and Gang Leader for the job contract.

He stated that the Workmen are Gang Leaders and they used to elect the Gang Leader among themselves and the Gang Leader changes every month. There is a Measurement Book for the Workmen in which the work done by the Workmen is being recorded and even payment is received by the Gang Leader. The D.V.C. Management does not maintain the 30 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) attendance Register of the Workmen, rather it is kept and maintained by the Gang Leader. He also stated that payment is made by virtue of Hand Receipt to the Gang Leader and as per site there may be 2, 4, 6 Workmen under a Gang Leader.

39. He stated that these Workmen have no direct relation with the D.V.C.-Management. The Workmen used to work sometime within one year intermittently and the works of those workmen is being inspected by the D.V.C. Officials or employees. He also stated that he is aware of all the Gang Leaders and the Workmen putting L.T.I. never became a Gang Leader. The Workmen are changed intermittently.

40. He also stated that all workmen are being given minimum wages. He admitted that there are some regular workmen, who used to do the work of beautification and land scaping and these workmen, who are involved in this dispute even do the work of land scaping, which means construction of Nala, Cleaning Work etc. Sometime, some regular employees also does the work of beautification and land scalping apart from these workmen.

41. He claimed that Workmen received payment through the gang leader and D.V.C.- Management does not maintain the record of Workmen.

42. However, during cross-examination he admitted that he is an Assistant Forest Ranger since 31 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) the year 1995 and earlier he was in Fisheries Department. He is not aware of the person who has raised the Industrial Dispute. The dispute relates to the effect that the workmen work under D.V.C., but it is not believed by D.V.C. Management. Earlier, the witness M.W.1 was the Field Assistant in the Fisheries Department in the regular employment and after closure of Fisheries Department, he was brought into the Forest Department in the year 1995. However, he was not aware as to how many Workmen were shown in the Panchet that time and he even could not say as to how many workers were there at the time of evidence. He is also not aware of job contract. There are 14 sites in the Panchet. In the month of June there is water crisis due to which Panchet is closed. Workmen are being paid on the basis of Hand Receipt and workmen are being paid monthly. He also clarified that there is name of Gang Leader in the hand receipt and it does not contain the name of workmen.

43. He asserted that payment is made for the work and minimum wages by joining it together. The Gang Leaders are being selected by virtue of rotation and the D.V.C. officers are not involved in choosing the Gang Leader, but if the Workmen chooses one illiterate Workman as Gang Leader then it will not be acceptable to the D.V.C. Management.

44. He claimed that there will be 14 Gang Leaders at 14 sites (side) but it is not necessary to 32 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) maintain 14 hand receipts and the number of hand receipt is reduced on the basis of amount. First of all, estimate is prepared, which was sent to the D.V.C. Officials and where budget is prepared and amount of budget is received from Panchet Project. Estimate is prepared for the whole year and the Gang Leader may increase the number of workmen on the basis of work. He also admitted that E.P.F./Employees Provident Fund has been started to be deducted, but the number is not received, but they did not maintain the accounting. The working period of workmen is 7-12 Noon and then 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. He is not aware as to whether attendance of workmen were taken or not before the work, but he used to see how much work has been done by each Workmen. He admitted that Kudal, Khurpi, Belcha have been supplied to the Workmen by purchasing from the Office of the Civil Department of D.V.C. His work is only to prepare the bills and for doing work measurement and to look after the plants and trees planted at the site, and making payment to the Gang Leader.

45. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of M.W.- 1, it is evident that he has not named any Contractor or Contractors employed/engaged by the D.V.C. for taking work from these 43 Workers during the period from 1982 till the date of Reference made in the year 1996 and even till the deposition of witnesses who were examined in the year 2003.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Apart from this, M.W.1 has differed from the averments made in the Written Statement of Management that the Workers are employed by their Gang Leaders and the Workers selected their Gang Leaders and thus, M.W.1 has not supported the case of the Petitioner-Company.

It is further evident that as a matter of fact, evidence of M.W.1 supports the case of the Workmen that the workers, i.e. these Workmen, were employed by their Gang Leaders and Gang Leaders changes every month. It is further evident that M.W.1, during course of his evidence, has not taken the name of any Contractor for engaging these 43 Workmen, which is contrary to the Written Statement of the Management.

Thus, the Management has wrongly and falsely stated in its Written Statement filed on 07.07.1997 before the learned C.G.I.T.-1, Dhanbad that the Workers were employed by the Contractors, who used to engage them on job contract basis as M.W.1 has not stated anything about the Contractor and who used to engage these 43 Workmen.

46. Even M.W.1 has proved the documents marked as Exhibit M-1 to M-1/6 respectively, which are the Hand Receipts dated 31.08.1997, i.e. for the period of one month, whereas Ext. 2 is the copy of Measurement Book No. 74 from Page 67 to 80, which is also dated 31.08.1997.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Thus, it is evident that the Management is completely silent between the period from 1992 to 1997 for which period these Workmen are claiming to have worked under the control of D.V.C., Dhanbad and which is under the control of D.V.C., Kolkata.

47. Even M.W.1 have not denied the fact that these 43 Workmen were working during the period from 1995 till 1997 and on 20.10.2003, i.e. on the date of his deposition.

48. M.W. 1 also admitted that the D.V.C. was deducting amounts of Employees Provident Fund from the wages of the Workmen, i.e. these 43 Workmen. Thus, M.W.1 started working in D.V.C. in the year 1995 and he admitted that he is not aware of job contract. He also admitted that there are 14 sites in Panchet, i.e. Panchet Dam and the Workmen are being paid monthly on the basis of Hand Receipt and there is name of Gang Leader in the Hand Receipt. Thus, the deduction of E.P.F. and other contributions from the Workmen shows that they were regularly working. He also admitted that the Gang Leaders are being selected by the virtue of rotation and D.V.C. officers are not involved in choosing the Gang Leader. Therefore, the evidence of M.W.1 clearly demonstrate that there is direct link between the Workmen and the D.V.C., i.e. the Petitioner-Management through the Assistant Forest Ranger of D.V.C. and thus, evidence 35 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) of M.W.1 supports the case of the Workmen and not the Management.

49. M.W.-2 is Shyam Charan Mandal, who works as Assistant Forest Ranger in the Forest Department of D.V.C. and he stated during evidence that he was posted in Panchet from October, 1992 to January, 1997 and at that time his designation was Assistant Forest Ranger and he was aware of the dispute.

50. He further stated that some casual workers were doing seasonal work in Soil Conservation Department in Panchet and casual workers wanted to be made permanent and which is the dispute of this case. They used to do the work of planting the flowers, mowing the grass and making Kyari for the flowers. Works were distributed on the basis of job contract. He stated that the meaning of job contract is that whenever work is required, i.e. flower planting, preparing bed etc., then it was verbally told to the leader of labour party and party leaders used to get the work done. One party leader used to keep on an average 5-6 workmen under his leadership. Workmen used to select party leaders amongst themselves. There was no written agreement between the D.V.C. and party leaders. On arrival of season, it was verbally informed to the party leader for the work and such work was done for Six-Seven months in the season.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

51. He asserted that the Workmen never made any attendance in the office, however, there is a measurement book for measuring the such work done and on the basis of which the hand receipts were prepared and said hand receipts were sent in the form of bills in the Accounts department and thereafter, party leader was paid on that basis and the party leader used to obtain money by putting signature on the hand receipts.

52. He asserted that the workman are are persons of the party leaders but not of D.V.C. Sometimes, the workmen used to change and the party leaders also used to change the workmen. He used to identify Two-Four party leaders only, but he does not recognize any workmen and even party leaders used to do work with the workmen. He asserted that no record was maintained in respect of those workmen in the D.V.C. Office and only the signature of party leader was maintained in the hand receipt.

53. During cross-examination, he could not say about the number of workmen appointed during 1992 to 1997 in the Panchet for doing Colony beautification and land scaping. The work was given to the party leader by job contract. The Assistant Forest Ranger used to give work to the party leader.

54. He denied the suggestion for telling the party leader about the money to be given for the work 37 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) allotted to him. He asserted that the workmen used to select their party leader on the site, but he is not aware as to how it is done and in that site the permanent staff of D.V.C. stayed through whom status of work is informed and after completion of work the Assistant Forest Ranger used to visit along with the regular staff to see how much work has been done. The Management does not see as to work was being taken from how many persons, i.e. only three had done or Six had done. The party leader used to inform them that normally, Six-Seven Workmen used to work under him.

55. They had never seen as to which workman had worked at the site for how many days, but they used to see as to how much work had been done. When he was posted in the Panchet, then at that time there were four-Five party leaders, then again he stated that he did not remember. Further, he could not say the number of sites in Panchet though earlier he had stated that there were five sites in Panchet.

56. He has shown ignorance as to who is the Principal Employer of the job contract. However, he stated and admitted that party leaders are being paid in cash by the Accounts (Department) and cash was being paid as per Hand Receipt. He admitted to be appointed in the year 1990 as the Assistant Forest Ranger in D.V.C. and initially he was posted at Chandrapura and where colony beautification and 38 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) land scaping was done at that time. There is no difference in the system of Chandrapura and Panchet. They had never seen the qualification of the party leader.

57. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of M.W.2, it appears that he has not taken the name of workmen and flatly denied that the real employer is D.V.C. He had denied his liability for engaging the Workmen for the work of beautification and landscaping.

58. Even M.W.2 admitted that the Measurement Book was maintained in the Office of D.V.C. for measuring the Work of the Workmen and on the basis of it the Hand Receipts were prepared and Hand Receipts were sent in the form of bills to the Accounts and Party Leaders used to obtain money by putting signature in the Hand Receipts. Even M.W.2 has shown ignorance as to who was the Contractor of the job contract, which was allotted to these 43 Workmen and he also admitted and stated that the Workmen are being paid in cash by the Accounts Department as per the Hand Receipt. He also admitted to be appointed in the year 1990 as Assistant Forest Ranger in D.V.C. and he was initially appointed in Chadrapura, Bokaro where colony beautification and Land Scaping were done and he stated that there is no difference between the Chandrpura, i.e. a bigger district and Panchet, i.e. Dhanbad district.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

59. Therefore, the evidence of M.W.2 shows that there was no Contractor between the Workman and the D.V.C. and wages of the Workmen are being paid by Hand Receipts by the Accounts Department of D.V.C.

60. Ext.M-1 to Ext. M-1/6, respectively of date 31.08.1997 are hand receipts with respect to payments made to the Respondent No.1-Workmen.

Even from perusal of Ext.M-1, M-1/1, M- 1/2, M-1/3, M-1/4, M-1/5 and M-1/6 respectively of 31.08.1997, it appears that the said Hand Receipts had been prepared by the Office of the D.V.C. having the signature of Divisional Officer, Field Officer and Camp- in-Charge etc. It is evident all the bills had been prepared by the Officials/Personnel of D.V.C. for doing the work in I.B. Garden, the Hospital Garden, Filter House Garden, Nehru Park, T.P.D. Garden, M.E. School Garden and Officer Dormitory Garden and the Workmen had been paid by the A.O., D.V.C., Panchet of the Division Forestry. Thus, from perusal of Ext.M-1 to Ext. M-1/6, respectively of date 31.08.1997, it is evident that these Hand Receipts have not been issued by any Contractor (S) or by the job Contractors or any other agency engaged by the D.V.C., which supports the case of the Workmen-Respondent No.1.

61. Similarly Ext. M-2 is Measurement Book of Forestry Division of D.V.C., which is also the 40 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) document of D.V.C. and not the Contractor, which also contained the signature of the Executive Engineer, Panchet Division, D.V.C. and has also been signed later on by the Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Maithon and also by the Zonal Officer, S.C.D., D.V.C.-5, Maithon and also signed by A.F.R., Panchet and other officials and personnel of D.V.C. on different dates in the year 1997, i.e. on 04.09.1997, 06.09.1997, 01.9.1997.

Thus, above Exhibit M-2 reveals that the Measurement Book was not maintained by any Contractor (s) engaged by the D.V.C. during the period 1982 to 1997, rather it was the Measurement Book maintained by the D.V.C.

62. Ext. M-3 is revised Schedule of rates for land scaping and Plantation in Forestry Section of D.V.C. by which the schedule of fees of Labour is fixed for doing different category of work at the rate of Rs.9.90/-, Rs. 26.50/-, Rs.13.20/-, Rs.39.70/-, Rs. 29.80/-, Rs. 119.10/- and so on respectively for doing different categories of work and said Ext. M-3 has been issued by the Deputy Director of Soil Conservation, F-E, D.V.C., Hazaribagh as well as Director of Soil Conservation, D.V.C., Hazaribagh.

63. Ext.M-4 is Letter dated 31.03.1997, issued by the Deputy Director of Soil Cons For-E, Hazaribagh, by which adequate estimate of Land Scaping and beautification work at Panchet project for 41 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) the year 1997-98 is fixed for doing the work at 11 places. Thus, Ext. M-4 fully corroborates Ext. M-1 to M-1/6 respectively.

Ext. M-4 was issued on 31.03.1997 and pursuant to which these 43 Workmen including the Gang Leader, had received payment through Ext. M-1 to Ext.M-1/6 respectively of date 31.08.1997 and Ext. M-4 also corroborates Ext. M-2, i.e. the Measurement Book.

64. Ext.M-5 to M-5/28 are the receipts of Imprest Cash Account of D.V.C. of Forestry Division, Sub-Division, Mython, which are the payment receipts, described as Imprest Cash Account of D.V.C. showing payment of 10 Workmen each on 19.01.2002, 15.02.2002, 18.03.2002, 29.04.2002, 29.05.2002, 18.06.2002, 15.07.2002, 16.08.2002, 16.09.2002, 21.10.2002, 12.11.2002, 13.12.2002, 16.01.2003 respectively by the Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Panchet. The above Exhibits (M-5 to M-5/13 respectively) further reveals 10 Workmen at different serial numbers.

65. Similarly, Ext.M-5/13-Ext.-5/15 are Imprest Cash Account of the D.V.C. dated 20.02.2003 in signature of Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Panchet showing payment of 49 person including these 43 Workmen (M-5/13 to 5/15 are the Imprest Cash Receipt issued by the Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Panchet).

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

66. Ext. M-5/16 and M-5/17 are the payment receipts issued by the D.V.C. through Imprest Cash Account showing payment of wages by Hand Receipts of 19 Workmen, out of 43 workmen by the Assistant Forest Ranger on 20.02.2003.

67. Ext. M-5/18 and 5/19 are Imprest Cash Account, D.V.C. issued by the Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Panchet, by which payment was made to 47 Workmen including these 43 Workmen.

68. Ext. M-5/20 and Ext. M-5/21 are Imprest Cash Account of D.V.C. showing payment to 10 Workmen and 9 Workmen respectively on 20.02.2003 and 26.03.2003 respectively.

69. Ext. M-5/22 to Ext. M-5/28 respectively are also receipts of D.V.C. Imprest Cash Account issued by the Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Panchet with respect to 10 workmen each respectively on different dates.

70. Therefore, it is evident that Ext. M-5 to Ext.M-5/28 are Hand Receipts which have been issued by the D.V.C., Imprest Cash Accounts showing payment of Workmen from 19th January, 2002 till 26th October, 2003. Thus, Ext.M-5 to Ext.M-5/28 are the imprest Cash Receipt of Cash Account No. 735 to 764, which also reveals that the Workmen had been paid their wages by the D.V.C., Panchet.

Thus, the above Exhibits supports the case of these 43 Workmen also.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

71. The imprest Cash Account dated 20.02.2003 of D.V.C., i.e. Ext.W-7/15, prepared by the Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Panchet reveals the name of 49 Workmen including W.W.2, namely Utpal Chakraborty at Sr. No. 41 for receiving payment of Rs.264/- on 20.02.2023.

From D.V.C. Imprest Cash Account , i.e. Ext.W-7/15 to Ext.W-7/29 respectively, it appears that 47 Workmen were being paid on 20.02.2003 by the Assistant Forest Ranger, D.V.C., Panchet.

72. It appears that the concerned Workmen is a member of Respondent No.1-Staff Association of D.V.C., Panchet, Dhanbad Unit and the Workmen, who were engaged in gardening, nursery, land scaping, colony beautification and environmental pollution control job at the Panchet Colony, were daily rated Workmen.

73. It is evident that there were Three (03) categories of service in the Petitioner-Damodar Valley Corporation in regular establishment i.e. Grade A, B & C at the relevant time of raising the industrial dispute. Employees of Grade-C are designated as Mazdoor, Khalasi and Helper etc. Mazdoor workers were engaged in civil maintenance division in the pay scale of Rs.195-3-213-4-245-5-271/-.

74. It appears from the minutes of tripartite discussion held between the representative of the workmen i.e. Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner DVC 44 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) on 21.03.1984, wherein it was agreed that said Workmen, i.e. Respondent No.1 would be considered as casual labourers of the petitioner-D.V.C. and it was also agreed that employer and employee relationship existed between such labourers and the Petitioner Damodar Valley Corporation.

75. It appears that the guidelines were issued by the Petitioner-Management on 15.09.1997 for regularization of casual workers and in pursuance of the said policy, panels were prepared in the year 1978, 1986 and 1988 for regularizing of those casual labourers but no such panels were prepared in respect of the concerned workmen and they were deprived of the opportunity of regularization of their service in pursuance of the policy adopted by the Petitioner- Damodar Valley Corporation.

76. It is clear that although the Respondent No.1 are termed as job contract workers under Gang Leader, attendance of the said Workers are maintained by Petitioner-D.V.C.'s official. The Workmen, who are members of Respondent No.1-Staff Association were required to report daily to the office of the Assistant Forest Ranger for their attendance and the Assistant Forest Ranger allotted the job to the individual workers and under the Gang Leaders.

77. It would appear that the Mali and Mazdoors are also appointed on Regular Establishment by the Petitioner-DVC under Civil 45 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Division for maintenance of gardening in the colony. On regular establishment, the pay scale of the Mazdoor was Rs. 195-3-213-4-245-5-275/- at the relevant time. The Workmen-Respondent No.1 were engaged in perennial nature of job.

78. Thereafter, Reference was raised by the Respondent No.1, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal.

79. It appears that those 43 (forty three) casual labourers are duly entitled to be regularized in the permanent cadre of the lowest category of employees of Petitioner-DVC and also entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the permanent workers of the lowest cadre w.e.f. 09.10.1996 i.e. from the date of Reference by the Appropriate Government. Reasons and justification of such regularization with all consequential benefits have been fully observed and recorded by the Industrial Tribunal in his Award dated 29.04.2006.

80. From perusal of Supplementary Affidavit dated 14.11.2022, filed on behalf of a member of Respondent No.1-Utpal Chakraborty (i.e.W.W.2) and one of the Workmen out of 43 Workmen, i.e. members of the Staff Association and in which the photocopy of Statement of status of 43 Workmen is annexed as Annexure-R2-1 and which reveals that out of altogether 43 Workers, 36 workers were still working 46 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) at the time the said supplementary affidavit had been filed.

81. However, it has also been clarified by the learned counsel for the Workmen-Respondent No.1 that out of such 43 casual labourers, Two (02) labourers left the job voluntarily, one (01) labourer (i.e. Utpal Chakraborty) has been retired and Thirteen (13) labourers have died, however, Eight (08) labourers have joined in place of the deceased. Thus, as on date, i.e. on 14.11.2022, 35 workers are still working. It has also been stated that one of the workers, namely Utpal Chakraborty had been released, vide Letter dated 06.11.2019, by the Assistant Forest Officer of the Petitioner-D.V.C. as he has attained the age of 60 years on 24.12.2019 (AN), which is enclosed as Annexure R2-2. From the said Annexure R2-2, it appears that EPF No. of Utpal Chakaraborty is EPF No. JHRAN00111840000000324.

The photocopies of the statement of contribution in E.P.F. by these casual workers showing payment of minimum wages paid by the Petitioner-D.V.C. are annexed with the said supplementary affidavit as R2-3 series, which shows that the statement of Employees Provident Fund Scheme with respect to the period from 01.10.2021 to 31.10.2021 was issued on 02.11.2021 under the joint signature of (i) Senior Divisional Engineer (C), Panchet Division, D.V.C., Panchet, (ii) Assistant Forest Officer, 47 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) S.C.D., D.V.C., Panchet and R.T.P.S. and (iii) Lecturer (Forestry), S.C.D., D.V.C., Panchet and the Additional Engineer (C ), In-charge, Panchet Division, D.V.C., Panchet.

82. It also reveals from the said supplementary affidavit dated 14.11.2022 that some of the similarly situated workers of Group 'D' of D.V.C. are being paid salary of lowest grade of Group D and it appears from the photocopy of the pay slip of some of the Workers, enclosed with the said supplementary affidavit as Annexure-R2-3 series that some of such workmen were being paid Rs. 51,449/-, Rs. 48,503/- respectively.

83. From perusal of I.A. No. 10578 of 2022 dated 18.11.2022 filed by M/s D.V.C., i.e. the Petitioner-Management, pursuant to the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court, it appears that a policy decision was to be taken by the Management-D.V.C., i.e. the petitioner-company, but due to unavoidable circumstances, within a period of Seven (07) days it was not possible to take a suitable decision in accordance with the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court on 10.11.2022 and in the circumstances, the Petitioner-D.V.C. prayed for an adjournment for 45 days for taking an appropriate decision in accordance with the observation made by 48 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court.

84. The order dated 10.11.2022, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court in this case is as follows:-

"1. Adjournment has been sought for by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

2. As prayed for, put up this case on 18.11.2022.

3. Till the next date, the warrant of arrest, issued against the petitioner-Management is, hereby, stayed."

85. The order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) is as follows:-

"It has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the matter is under consideration before the Apex body and it is expected that favourable decision will be taken in favour of the awardee and for that further time has been prayed for.

As prayed for, list this case after three weeks. Till then, order dated 10.11.2022 shall continue.

In view of the order, as above, pending I.A.s stand disposed of."

86. It reveals that earlier the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) has stayed the warrant of arrest issued against the Petitioner- Management vide order dated 10.11.2022 till 18.11.2022 and thereafter interim order was 49 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) continued on 21.11.2022 and the matter was directed to be posted after Three (03) weeks. however, the matter was heard thereafter on 29.02.2024 and on that day learned counsel for the petitioner-company had taken time, which was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Chowdhary) of this Court by way of last chance by fixing the case after six weeks. Thereafter, the matter was placed before this Court on 31.07.2024.

87. It is a settled law that the Court need not interfere into the Award passed by the learned Tribunal or by the learned Labour Court below if it is demonstrably not illegal, without jurisdiction and based on no evidence.

88. It is well settled that the Writ Court will not interfere in the Award passed by the learned Tribunal if there is no illegality, perversity and impropriety in the impugned Award.

89. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477 at Paragraph no.7 as follows:-

"Para 7:-The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are 50 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence 51 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : (AIR 1958 SC 398) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168."

90. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, at Paragraph no.21 as follows:-

"Para 21:-With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that 52 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari."

91. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 at Paragraph nos.12 and 13 as follows:-

"Para 12:- Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra) Para 13:- In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error 53 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice."

92. Although Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the Workmen were employed by the Contractor and Workmen were not employed by the D.V.C., but from perusal of the Lower Court Records, it is evident that these Workmen were never employed by the Contractor from time to time, ever, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also failed to state the name of any such Contractor (s), who had/have engaged and employed these Workmen.

93. Even the learned Senior Counsel did not argue on the point of Ext. M-5 to M-5/28, Ext.W-7 to Ext. W.-7/29, which clearly reveals that the Workmen were directly paid by the Assistant Forest Ranger for the period from the year 2002 till 26.10.2003.

Further, the Management has not denied the documents marked as Ext.W-1, Ext. W-3, Ext. W- 3/1 and Ext. W-4 respectively.

94. So far as the judgment passed in the case of State of Gujarat and Others Versus R.J. Pathan and Others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 394, at Para 10 and 11, is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case because in the above case, concerned respondents were appointed 54 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) on contractual basis for a period of 11 months on a fixed salary and on a particular Project, namely "Post Earthquake Re-Development Programme" of the Government of Gujarat in the year 2004 to the post of Drivers. However, on closure of the project the State Government, instead of terminating their services, took a decision to place them in the services of Indian Red Cross Society. Instead of joining the duties, the Respondents approached the High Court by filing the writ petition for regularization of their services and absorption in Government Service. Although, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, however, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court had allowed the Letters Patent appeal filed by respondents being L.P.A. No. 2082 of 2011 and thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, distinguishing it in Para 14 with the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 08 SCC 238, which is a subsequent decision of Uma Devi, on the ground that it was the case of irregularly appointed employees and it was a case with respect to the employees working with the State of Jharkhand after its creation on 15.11.2000 and hence, no one could have completed 10 years of service in the State of Jharkhand on the cut off date of 10.04.2006, hence the above judgment is not applicable because in the present case the workmen were working in the D.V.C.-Management since the year 1982 and hence, the case of Uma Devi (Supra) is also not applicable in this case.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) It has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even otherwise, it is to be noted that though not required, the State, instead of putting an end to the services of the respondents, graciously placed the respondents in the Indian Red Cross Society. No duty was cast upon the State to transfer them to another establishment in a case where it is found that the employees are appointed in a temporary unit and on a temporary contractual basis and on a fixed term salary and on closure of the temporary unit their services are not required. However, the State Government was gracious enough to place the respondents in the Indian Red Cross Society, which the respondents did not accept.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that no such order of absorption and/or regularization even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

95. So far the judgment passed in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639 is concerned, it is also not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case because in the above case the appellant had sought regularization on the post of Supervisor/Time Keeper and for which the minimum qualification was fixed as Matriculation with Mathematics and which was not possessed by the appellant. In the said case even the appellant was not appointed against any post by any competent authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has 56 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) dismissed the said case in view of the law laid down in the judgment reported in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), however, in the present case, the workmen were working since the year 1982 and even on the date of passing of the Award they were admitted to be working. Thus, the case of Uma Devi will not apply in the present case.

96. So far as the judgment passed in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu and Another versus Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Others reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 393, at Para 57 is concerned, it is also not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case because in the above case learned Single Judge and Hon'ble Division Bench of Madras High Court has directed the State Government to create the posts under the designation of "Village Level Workers", which is called as "Makkal Nala Paniyalargal"

(hereinafter being referred to as "MNP") or by any other name but shall accommodate the persons who were on the rolls of M.N.P. on the date of issuance of notification dated 8th November, 2011 against any vacant post in the State Government Schools, Village Panchayats, Town Panchayats, Municipalities, Corporations, Collector Office, Village Offices or any other Government offices and undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu through out the State of Tamil Nadu according to the qualification possessed by each candidate, without reference to their age in their Native, Taluk or Revenue District.

However, the case of the Workmen in the present case are completely different from the respondents in the above case as they were working prior to 57 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) pronouncement/passing of judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) although in the above case several respondents were working as M.N.P. on payment of honorarium of Rs.200/- and altogether 25234 workers were engaged through out the State and several responsibilities were entrusted to male and female workers in the garb of providing employment to the educated youth in the rural areas, who had completed 10th Standard for various items of the work of the village Panchayat. However, this is not the case of the Workman in the present case and they are working in the D.V.C. Management like whole time employees.

97. So far as judgment reported in the case of K. Lubna and Others Versus Beevi and Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 524, at Para 10 is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as the judgment was passed in the above case regarding tenancy dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the question as follows:

"On the legal principle, it is trite to say that a pure question of law can be examined at any stage, including before this Court. If the factual foundation for a case has been laid and the legal consequences of the same have not been examined, the examination of such legal consequences would be a pure question of law."

98. Apart from this, it is evident that the judgment in the case of State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is not applicable on the 58 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) facts and in the circumstances of this case because the Respondent-Workmen were working in the Petitioner- Company since the year 1982 and they have completed more than approximately 24 years of service on the date of passing of judgment in State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi and thus, the judgment of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.

99. It is evident that these Workmen were continuously working till the year 2003 and even on the day of passing of Award dated 29.04.2006 in question the Workmen were working for more than Two decades. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of long continuation of service, they should be regularized.

100. It is held in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 771, Para 7 to 11 as follows:-

"Para 7: The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the 59 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid."

Para 8 -: If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench."

Para 9:-The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise -- the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance."

"Para 10:- Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 60 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc."

Para11:-The impugned judgment and order [Anil Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2904] passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of."

101. It is held in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., reported in the case of (2018) 13 SCC 432 at para 7 to 10 as follows:

" Para 7:-When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The prime 61 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularising the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14 , 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR 1983 SC 130] , from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits, etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights.

We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Thus, the 62 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) time has come to stop the situation where Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :

2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] ."

Para 9:- The High Court dismissed the writ application relying on the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . But the appellants were employed basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service for three years, when they were offered the service on contract basis; it was not the case of back door entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time, when their temporary status was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002. The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-time measure, as laid down in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Since the appellants 63 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect from 2-10-2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularised from the said date i.e. 2-10-

2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today."

Para10:- Impugned judgment and order [Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16492] and also order terminating the services are hereby quashed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending application, stands disposed of.

102. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Banerjee Versus State of West Bengal and Others, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 93 at Paragraph nos.24, 25, 27, 28, 29 as follows:-

"Para 24:- The respondent has relied on Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] judgment to contend that there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily-wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. The relevant portion of the factual position in Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is being reproduced as hereunder : (SCC pp. 19-20, para 8) "8. ... the respondents therein who were temporarily engaged on daily-wages in the Commercial Taxes Department in some of the districts of the State of Karnataka claim that they worked in the Department based on such engagement for more than 10 years and hence they are entitled to be made permanent employees of the Department, entitled to all the benefits of regular employees. They were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-1986 and in the teeth of orders not to make 64 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) such appointments issued on 3-7-1984. Though the Director of Commercial Taxes recommended that they be absorbed, the Government did not accede to that recommendation. These respondents thereupon approached the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997 with their claim. The Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim finding that they had not made out a right either to get wages equal to that of others regularly employed or for regularisation. Thus, the applications filed were dismissed. The respondents approached the High Court of Karnataka challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. It is seen that the High Court without really coming to grips with the question falling for decision in the light of the findings of the Administrative Tribunal and the decisions of this Court, proceeded to order that they are entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. It may be noted that this gave retrospective effect to the judgment of the High Court by more than 12 years. The High Court also issued a command to the State to consider their cases for regularisation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of that order. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that, whether they were appointed before 1-7-1984, a situation covered by the decision of this Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka [Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274] and the scheme framed pursuant to the direction thereunder, or subsequently, since they have worked for a period of 10 years, they were entitled to equal pay for equal work from the very inception of their engagement on daily-wages and were also entitled to be considered for regularisation in their posts."

Para 25: However, in the present case, as we have observed, the appellant was appointed as a casual worker in 1991. While the services of other co-employees were regularised, that of the appellant and some others was left out. The High Court in its order dated 3-9-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 17892 of 2010 has also recorded the 65 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) respondents' submissions that resolutions pertaining to the appellant's absorption are already in place and the same have been sent for necessary approval. Therefore, the judgment rendered in Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Para 27:- The facts of U.P. SEB [U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey, (2007) 11 SCC 92 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736] are similar to the case at hand. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder : (SCC pp. 95-96 & 99, paras 3-9 & 19) "3. By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily-wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") had prayed for regularisation of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Electricity Board"). It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3-4-1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 3-4-1997 is Annexure P-2 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State Government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily-wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position".

4. Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board.

5. Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28-11-1996 to regularise the services of its employees working on daily-wage basis from before 4-5-1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose.

6. The contention of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28-11-1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily-wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working from before 4-5-1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board 66 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) and who were working with the Electricity Board on daily- wage basis.

7. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21-9- 1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily-wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.

8. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge.

9. The writ petitioners who were daily-wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4-5-1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position". In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28-11-1996.

***

19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularisation and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face."

Para 28:- The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit. Para 29:- Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken in the impugned judgment [Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of W.B., MAT No. 611 of 2018, order dated 10-12-2019 (Cal)] of the High Court as well as by the learned Single Judge [Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of W.B., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5401] in Writ Petition No. 31399 (W) of 2017. The appellant herein, in our considered opinion, is entitled 67 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) to receive back wages and benefits from 1991, along with an interest of 10%. "

103. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Versus Union of India and Others and another analogous case reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 at Paragraph nos.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 as follows:-

Para 22:- The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. Para 23:- The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. Para 24:- The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 68 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

Para 25:- It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

Para 26:- While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

Para 27:- In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended 70 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. Para 28: In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post- retiral benefits.

104. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Versus Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 270 at Paragraph nos.18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 as follows:-

"Para 18:- Analysis and findings: Having heard the parties in detail, we are of the opinion that the present appeals can be disposed of for the following reasons. Para 19:- At the outset, the appellant objected to the Tribunal entertaining the industrial dispute passing of the award on the ground that a settlement under S. 18(1) read with S. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act is binding on all the parties under S. 19(2) of the Act. This is the substantive part of the submission on behalf of the appellant. The facts of this case, as they unfold, leading to the arrival of the settlement, 71 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) followed by the reference to the Industrial Tribunal, and then the award, are necessary for our consideration. Para 20:- At the first place, all the 32 workmen commenced their work through the contractor from 1984 and continued till 1994. In 1994, the respondent-union espoused the cause of all the 32 workers and the Asst. Labour Commissioner took up the entire cause. This culminated in the settlement dated 05.04.1997, relied upon by the appellant. Para 27:- We are also not impressed with the artificial distinction which the appellant sought to bring about between the 19 workers who were regularized and the 13 workers who were left out. The evidence on record discloses that, of the total 32 workmen, 19 workers worked in the bunker, 6 worked in the Coal Handling Plant, and 7 worked on the railway siding. However, of the 19 workers who were regularized, 16 worked in the bunker, and 3 worked in the Coal Handling Plant. However, 3 workers from the same bunker, 3 workers from the same Coal Handling Plant and again 7 workers from the same railway siding were not regularized. A tabulated representation of the above description is as follows:

Site of work No. of No. of No. of workers workers who workers who not regularized executed were works regularized Bunker 1 1 3 9 6 Coal Handling 6 3 3 Plant Railway Siding 7 - 7 Total: 32 19 13 Para 28:- The above-referred facts speak for themselves, and that is the reason why the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the denial of regularization of the 13 workmen is wholly unjustified. As stated previously, we do not find any grounds in the artificial distinction asserted by the appellant. However, as the case was argued at length we thought it appropriate to give reasons for rejecting the appeals. What we have referred to hereinabove are all findings of fact by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court. In view of the concurrent findings of fact on the issue of nature of work, the continuing nature of work, continuous working of the 72 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) workmen, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellant.

Para 29:- This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularization, for no fault of the workmen and therefore, there will be no order restricting their wages. Para 30:- With respect to payment of backwages, we are of the opinion that the workmen will be entitled to backwages as observed by the Industrial Tribunal. However, taking into account, the long-drawn litigation affecting the workmen as well as the appellant in equal measure and taking into account the public interest, we confine the backwages to be calculated from the decision of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2002. This is the only modification in the order of the Tribunal, and as was affirmed by the judgment of the High Court. Para 31:- For the reasons stated above, the appeals arising out of the final judgment and order of the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 2002/2002 and order in Review Petition No. 77/2017 are dismissed with the direction that the concerned workmen shall be entitled to backwages with effect from 23.05.2002. There shall be no order as to costs."

105. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has failed to make out the case in favour of the Petitioner- D.V.C.

106. It transpires that this case was heard time and again before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Although the writ petition has been filed in the year 2006 but the matter remained pending for a long period and on 22.02.2013, the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, As His Lordship then was) of this Court had observed that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner-Management in relation to the execution of the impugned order in question in the meantime.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) However, the above order was passed in view of the fact that on 23.01.2013, none had appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and even on 22.02.2013 none had appeared on behalf of the Respondent- Workmen. Thus, it was not an absolute stay against the D.V.C., i.e. the Petitioner-Management. Thereafter, the matter was placed on 06.01.2016, 22.01.2016, 29.01.2016, 05.02.2016, 15.06.2016 and 22.06.2017. Thereafter, on 07.08.2017 another Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) disposed of I.A. No. 1495 of 2007 with an observation that vide order dated 22.02.2013, this Court had already observed that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner in relation to the execution of the impugned Award in question. Thereafter, the Co-ordinate Bench admitted this writ petition on 23.07.2019. Even during the Covid-19 Pandemic period, the matter was taken up twice, i.e. on 04.11.2020 and 01.02.2021. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.11.2022, the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court has stayed the warrant of arrest issued against the Petitioner-Management and when on the next date, i.e. on 21.11.2022 the case was taken up, the interim order was continued up to 29.02.2024 and on the said date when the matter was placed before another Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kr. Choudhary) of this Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioner-Management has taken time. Thereafter, the matter was placed before this Court for the first time on 31.07.2024. Thus, it would appear that on 29.02.2024 the interim order had not been continued.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 )

107. In view of the fact that the Workmen cannot be denied the fruits of litigation and also in view of the fact that this writ petition remained pending for more than 18 years before this Court, the Petitioner-Management - D.V.C. is directed to implement the Award forthwith within a period of Three (03) months from today, failing which the learned Court-below will take coercive step against the petitioner-company.

108. It is evident that during pendency of this case, 13 original workmen out of 43 workmen have died and Eight (08) workmen have joined in the place of the deceased Workmen and One (01) labourer, i.e. one original workman has retired, whereas Two labourers have left the job voluntarily.

So far as Two labourers, who had left the job voluntarily are concerned, they may also be given the benefit as they were working in the roll of petitioner- Management till the date of passing the impugned Award. Thus, the benefit accrued to them cannot be taken away merely because they have left the job of the petitioner- Management.

Similarly, the remaining Workmen, who had retired and have been released by the D.V.C.- Management, must be given the benefit of the Company as he has retired during pendency of the writ petition before this Court.

Even family members of the 13 workmen, who had died during pendency of the writ petition, cannot be denied the benefit because there is nothing on record to 75 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) show that they had died prior to passing of the impugned order dated 29.04.2006 by the learned Tribunal.

Similarly, the Workmen who are working in the petitioner Company, who have retired in the meantime shall also be given the benefits.

109. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also directed for regularization of services of the Workmen, who had worked for one decade or Two decades and has held that they are entitled to be regularized.

Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the principles of natural justice demand that the workmen cannot be denied the benefits of regularization of their services when similarly placed persons have been granted the said benefit.

110. In the present case also the workmen have worked for a long time and similarly placed persons have been regularized and hence, the learned Tribunal has answered the Reference rightly and correctly that "not to make permanent the 43 casual labourers mentioned in Annexure 'A' of the Forestry Department and not to provide pay scale equivalent to permanent labourer of establishment by the management of D.V.C. are not justified. They are entitled to be regularised in permanent cadre of the lowest category of employees under D.V.C. with effect from 09.10.1996, the date of reference. They are also entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the permanent workmen of the lowest grade with effect from 09.10.1996 with all consequential benefits."

Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25419 ) Thus, this Court finds that no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal.

111. Accordingly, the Award dated 29.04.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in Ref. Case No.9/96 is upheld and the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed.

112. The Interim order dated 22.02.2013, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, As His Lordship then was) of this Court and continued vide Order dated 07.08.2017, Order dated 10.11.2022 and Order dated 21.11.2022 are, hereby, vacated.

113. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Court below forthwith along with the original Lower Court Records.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Judgement Dated 22.08.2025 A.F.R./s.m.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court