UNION OF INDIA · & Ors. v. VARTAK LABOUR UNION

Judgment

• [2011] 4 S.C.R. 509 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. · V. VARTAK LABOUR UNION (Civil Appeal Nos.2129-2130 of 2004) MARCH 4, 2011 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] A B Labour Law: Regularization - Border Roads Organization (BRO) - c Respondent-trade union filed writ petition seeking regularization of casual labourers employed by BRO - High Court directed appellant No. 1 to regularize such casual workers on basis of an Office Memo, purportedly issued by the appellants - Direction challenged - Held: The High Court 0 erroneously construed the said Office memo as an approved scheme for absorption and regularization of the casual workers - The said Office Memo was merely in the nature of an inter-department communication between the Border Roads Development Board headquarters and its officials - Claim for regularization of casual workers; merely because they had been working for BRO for a considerable period of time, cannot be granted - Casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker was engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed F in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules.

E Regularisation - Casual workers engaged by Border G Roads Organization (BRO) for thirty to forty years, with short breaks - Need for appropriate regulation/scheme - Union of India to consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme 509 H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [2011] 4 S.C.R. A for absorption and regularization of the services of the casual workers engaged by BRO. Administrative Law - Administrative policy - Inter departmental communications and notings in departmental files - Held: Do not have the sanction of law and do not create a legally enforceable right. 8 The respondent, a registered trade union comprising of casual workers employed by the Border Roads Organization (BRO), filed writ petition before the High C Court praying for issuance of a writ, inter-alia, directing · appellant No.1 viz.

Union of India to regularize the services of the members of the respondent. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, and directed appellant No.1 to regularize the services of the D members of the respondent who had been in service for more than five years. In writ appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court modified the order of the Single Judge on the basis of circular dated 25th May, 1988 issued by D.C' G. (P&V), for and on behalf of the Director General E Border Roads, New Delhi to all Chief Engineers for consideration of regularizat • .ln of casually paid labourers employed by the BRO. Aggrieved by the directions of the Division Bench, the appellants preferred appeal before this Court.

This Court remanded the matter back to the F Division Bench. During the course of fresh hearing of the writ appeal before the Division Bench, the Central Government counsel on behalf of the appellants stated that pursuant to circular dated 25th May 1988, the appellants had G framed a scheme vide Office Memo No.Sectt. BRDB ID No. BRDB/04(90)/99-GE-11 dated 2nd February, 2001, for the welfare of casually paid employees. Upon perusal of the scheme and recording the satisfaction of the counsel appearing for the respondent-Union, the Court observed H • UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. VARTAK LABOUR UNION 511 that the scheme had been framed on a rational basis. A Accordingly, disposing of the writ appeal on the basis of the said office memo, the Division Bench directed appellant no.1 to regularize the services of the members of the respondent Union, employed by BRO, as postulated in Office Memo No.

Sectt. BRDB ID No. BRDB/ B 04(90)/99-GE-11 dated 2nd February, 2001. Review application filed by the appellants was dismissed. In the instant appeals, the question which arose for consideration were: 1) whether the office memo dated C 2nd February, 2001 was merely in the nature of an inter- . departmental communication between the Border Roads Development Board headquarters and its officials and the High Court erred in treating such communication as a final scheme for regularization of the casual labourers and 2) whether formulation of any scheme for D regularisation being a matter of policy, it is not within the domain of the Court to direct regularisation of temporary appointees de hors the recruitment rules.

Allowing the appeals, the Court E It is that trite HELD:1. inter-departmental communications and notings in departmental files do not have the sanction of1 law, creating a legally enforceable right. The Division Bench of the High Court erroneously construed the Office memo dated 2nd February, 2001 as an approved scheme for absorption and regularization of the casual workers. It is manifest from a bare reading of the said memo that it was merely in the nature of an inter departmental communication between the Border Roads Development Board headquarters and its officials. There G is no substance in the stand of the respondent that the appellants are withholding the approved scheme from this Court.

The plea of the respondent that a final scheme did come into existence on 2nd February 2001, stands F H • 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. A belied from the letter of the Border Roads Development Board dated 22nd July 2002. [Paras 13, 14) (519-C-E; 520- B-C]