Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 wp1561.12.odt Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply and stated that the respondent-Senior College is not an industry. The provisions of ID Act are not applicable. The procedure laid down under the ID Act was not required to be followed. The petitioner was a daily wager with effect from 13.07.1992 and could not be termed as a Peon or regularly appointed person, within the meaning of section 59 of the Act of 1994. The junior employees indicated by the petitioner are permanent employees but for Mr. Bawankar, who is also a daily wager like the petitioner. A daily wager cannot have any status of permanent employee as per the statutory provisions and standard Code. The respondents thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

The appeal was earlier decided by judgment dated 29.01.1998 and was dismissed holding that the appointment of the appellant was not properly made in terms of the provisions of Standard Code. This Court in Writ Petition No.1512/1998 set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal and remitted the appeal to the tribunal for fresh decision on merits. After remand, the appeal was taken up for hearing by the tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal.

6 wp1561.12.odt

5. Per contra, Mr. Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned judgment and order of the tribunal. He argued that the tribunal has dealt with the aspect about compliance of provisions of ID Act and various judgments of the apex Court and the petitioner failed to prove the grounds raised by him. Counsel for the respondents then argued that the petitioner was working as daily wager and, therefore, was not entitled to any relief in terms of decision in the case of Himanshu Kumar (supra) rendered by the Supreme Court. According to him, the employment of the petitioner was contrary to the Standard Code and he could not be appointed in clear and permanent post since the petitioner belongs to open category and then on the date of his appointment and thereafter no post for open category was at all available. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner had no legal right to be in the employment and, therefore, at any rate, no relief can be granted to him as has been done by the College Tribunal. The counsel for the respondent-employer then argued that no post for open category has been available since after termination of services of the petitioner and even as on date all the posts which were available have been filled in due to clearance of backlog as 7 wp1561.12.odt per the policy of reservation. Even as of today, no post is available for accommodating the petitioner. He also submitted that in the alternative at the most compensation can be granted to the petitioner looking to the long period that has passed and hence no order of reinstatement cannot be made. Finally, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.