Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Per Mrs. Hina P.Shah Since a common question of law and facts involves in these OAs, therefore, these are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, we are taking pleadings of OA No.78/2015.

2. Applicant in this OA has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"That this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the present original application and Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondents department to grant the status of regularisation to the applicant from the date of regularization of other similar situated persons vide order dated 10.08.1992 (Anx.A/2) and to direct the respondents to allow and grant all consequential benefits after such regularization of service as prayed for;

The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue directions to the respondents to modify the order dated 19/06/2007 (Anx.A/8) up to the extent it grants regularization of the applicant's service from the date of his joining as Regular Mazdoor instead of from the date of regularization of other similar situated persons vide order dated 10.08.1992 (Anx.A/2)"

3. Brief facts of case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was appointed as casual labour (Mazdoor) against the permanent and sanctioned post on 4.8.1981. He did not remain present for some time due to his illness and after producing medical certificate he was allowed to join his duties. Then all of sudden, his services were terminated w.e.f. 1.7.1988 against which a dispute was raised by the General Secretary, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh before the Government of India, which was referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal (CIT), Jaipur for adjudication and the same was registered as CIT No.9/1990. The CIT vide judgment dated 13.3.1992 declared the termination as illegal and directed the respondent to deem the services of the applicant as continuous with all consequential benefits. The said judgment was challenged by the respondents by filing SB Writ Petition No.7400/1992, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.11.1992. The office of Telecom District Engineer, Sri Ganganagar has issued order dated 10.08.1992 by which services of casual labours who completed 10 years or more service as on 31.12.1991 and approved by the D.P.C. were regularised, but the case of the applicant was not considered as during the relevant point of time due to pendency of the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant was otherwise entitled for regularisation as he was engaged in the department on 4.8.1981 and therefore, had completed 10 years of service at the relevant point of time. Other similarly situated persons were regularised by the respondent department vide order dated 10.8.1992 (Ann.A/2).

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicants in both the OAs.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The applicants in the present OAs were terminated from 1.7.1988 and they were re-engaged and given back wages in compliance of the Central Industrial Tribunal's order dated 13.03.1992, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter the applicants were given temporary status in the year 2004 and 2005 and after sanction of post of Regular Mazdoor vide order dated 19.6.2007 (Ann.A/8 & A/4) their services were regularised after recommendations of the DPC. After regularisation of their services, they have accepted the position of granting temporary status in the year 2004 and 2005 and regularisation vide order dated 19.6.2007 and did not raise any grievance at that juncture. It is only in the year 2014, they suddenly woke up from a deep slumber and sent a notice for demand of justice dated 17.6.2014 (Ann.A/9 & A/5). Thereafter they have filed these OAs claiming similar benefit of regularisation of their services as has been extended vide order dated 10.08.1992 from the date of regularisation of other similarly situated persons and accordingly seek direction for modification of order dated 19.6.2007. The applicants are claiming the benefits of regularisation as has been given to other persons vide order dated 10.8.1992 by filing these OAs in the year 2015. The dispute raised before the Central Industrial Tribunal was regarding their dis-engagement, which was decided vide award dated 13.3.1992 and thereafter the Writ Petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court were also dismissed. Thereafter they were taken back in services and back wages were also given to them. The applicants being satisfied did not bother to raise their grievance at the time of their joining back in service. They also did not raise their grievances at the time of granting temporary status and regularisation. It is well settled law that a person who claims equity must enforce his claim within a reasonable time. In support of this view, it will be relevant to refer to the ratio of some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard.

8. Thus, if the matter is viewed in the light of the above ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments, we find no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage and the OAs are liable to be dismissed.

9. Even otherwise, if the matter is considered from different angle, the applicants were not able to establish that they were having 10 years of services with temporary status on the above mentioned cut-off date for claiming parity with the persons regularised vide order dated 10.8.1992. Their case could not be considered earlier for regularisation as they were not having 10 years or more service with temporary status as on the cut-off date of 31.12.1991. The applicant in OA No.78/2015 started working as casual labour on muster roll w.e.f. 1.10.1981 and he has not performed services as casual labour w.e.f. 1.5.1984 to 31.12.1987 i.e. for about 3 years and 7 months. He was again engaged as casual labour w.e.f. 1.1.1988. In OA No. 79/2015, applicant started working as casual labour on muster roll w.e.f. January, 1982 and he has not performed his services as casual labour w.e.f. 1.11.1983 to 31.12.1984 i.e. 4 years and 2 months. Though the applicant in this OA has stated that he was engaged on 1.2.1976, but the respondents have denied and stated that the applicant started working from January, 1982. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder to controvert this aspect of reply of the respondents. It is noted that while issuing the order 10.8.1992, the applicants were not holder of temporary status with 10 years of service as on 31.12.1991, which was the requirement for regularisation of services of a casual labour as provided in the letter dated 3.1.1992 (Ann.R/2). Therefore, their case could not be considered for regularisation at the relevant point of time. The persons regularised vide order dated 18.8.1992 (Ann.A/2) were having temporary status and also had 10 years or more service on 31.12.1991, hence, they were regularised. Since the applicants were neither having 10 years' service nor holder of temporary status and also that their cases were not approved by the DPC for regularisation, in these circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the action of the respondents.