High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2945/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P K MUSAHARY JUDGMENT & ORDER (Ansari, J) By this common judgement and order, we dispose of the present set of wri t petitions, wherein the material facts are identical and the questions of law a re same and, hence, on the request made by the learned counsel for the parties c oncerned, the writ petitions have been heard together. 2. Before considering the legal aspects of the grievances of the petitioner s vis-à-vis the stand of the respondents, we deem it appropriate to take note of the material facts, which have given rise to the present set of writ petitions. These material facts may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) The petitioners herein, who are casual labourers in the Bharat Sanchar N igam Limited, Department of Telecommunication (in short, ’DoT’), Government of I ndia, had claimed benefits of Temporary Status Mazdoors as per the Casual Labour ers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Department of Telec ommunication, 1989 (in short, ’1989 Scheme’), but the respondents refused to gra nt to the petitioners the status of Temporary Mazdoors (Temporary Status Mazdoor s) and the consequential benefits accruing therefrom. (ii) Aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to grant to the petitioners Temporary Status, All India Telecom Employees Union preferred, initially, two Or iginal Applications (in short, ’OA’), namely, O.A. Nos. 299 of 1996 and 302 of 1 996, in the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ’learned Tribunal’), Guwahati Bench. The said OAs were disposed of by order, d ated 13.08.1997, with direction to the respondents to extend to the petitioners of the said two OAs the benefits of the 1989 Scheme by granting them Temporary S tatus; but as the respondents did not implement the directions of the learned Tr ibunal, the All India Telecom Employees Union as well as some individual casual labourers approached the learned Tribunal, once again, by filing a number of OAs , namely, OA Nos. 107 of 1998, 112 of 1998, 114 of 1998, 118 of 1998, 120 of 199 8, 131 of 1998, 135 of 1998, 136 of 1998, 141 of 1998, 142 of 1998, 145 of 1998, 192 of 1998, 223 of 1998, 269 of 1998 and 293 of 1998, which were disposed of b y a common order, dated 31.08.1999, directing the applicants (including the peti tioners herein) to file individual representations before the respondents with f urther direction to the respondents to scrutinize, examine and consider each of the cases of the petitioners. However, despite directions, so issued, Temporary Status was not granted to the petitioners. On the contrary, Temporary Status, which had been granted earlier to some of the petitioners, was withdrawn. (iii)
Legal Reasoning
Failing to receive, though repeatedly claimed, Temporary Status, some of the petitioners filed, in this Court, a number of writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions to be issued t o the respondents to grant them the status of Temporary Mazdoor, the said writ p etitions were subsequently transferred by the High Court, for adjudication, to t he learned Tribunal and the writ petitions came to be registered, in the learned Tribunal, as T.A. Nos. 03/2009, 05/2009, 06/2009, 07/2009, 08/2009, 9/2009, 10/ 2009, 11/2009, 13/2009, 25/2009, 27/2009, 28/2009, 29/2009, 30/2009, 31/2009, 34 /2009, 35/2009, 36, 2009, 38/2009, 39/2009, 40/2009, 41/2009, 42/2009, 43/2009, 44/2009, 45/2009, 46/2009, 47/2009, 48/2009, 49/2009, 50/2009, 5 1/2009, 52/2009, 53/2009, 54/2009, 55/2009, 56/2009, 57/2009, 58/2 009, 59/2009, 60/2009, 61/2009, 62/2009, 63/2009, 64/2009, 65/2009, 66/2009. By a common judgement and order, dated 22.01.2010, the learned Tribu nal dismissed the petitioners’ said T.A.s on the ground that the petitioners had failed to make out any case establishing any illegality, irrationality or mista ke, on the part of the respondents, while considering the petitioners’ claims fo r Temporary Status. It is the order, dated 22.01.2010, aforesaid passed by the learned Tribu 3. nal, which stands impugned in this set of writ petitions filed by the petitioner s herein seeking to get set aside the order, dated 22.01.2010, and also seeking appropriate directions to be issued to the respondents to grant to the petitione rs the status of Temporary Mazdoor in terms of the 1989 Scheme. 4. The root of controversy, in this set of writ petitions, therefore, lies in the correct appreciation of the meaning and import of the 1989 Scheme, namely , (cid:28)Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Dep artment of Telecommunication, 1989 (cid:29), introduced by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limi ted (in short, ’BSNL’), for conferring temporary status on its casual workers. 5. We have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the writ peti tioners, and Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Standing counsel, BSNL, and Mr. B. C. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, in WP(C) 2945/2011, WP(C) 1363/ 2010, WP(C) 2163/2011, WP(C) 4817/2010 and WP(C) 849/2012, Mr. Y. K. Phukan, l earned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner, and Mrs. S. Chakraborty, lear ned Central Government counsel, and Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Standing counsel, BSN L, appearing for the respondents, in WP(C) 6918/2010, Mr. M. Chanda, learned cou nsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. Y. Dodoi, learned Standing counsel, BSNL, appearing for the respondents, in WP(C) 18/2010. We have also heard Mr. S. Dutt a, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. S. Dey, learned counsel for th e respondents, in WP(C) 4059/2010. It may, now, be noted that the petitioners were engaged, from time to ti 6. me, as casual labourers by the Department of Telecommunication, Government of In dia, on daily wage basis, their engagement having not, however, been against any vacant sanctioned post nor was any of them engaged by resorting to any selecti on process. The 1989 Scheme was introduced by the Government of India, Departm ent of Telecommunication, the scheme, however, having been formulated and prepar ed in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Daily R ated Casual Labourer of Department of Posts vs. Union of India and others, repor ted in (1988) 1 SCC 122. The said 1989 Scheme was introduced by the Government of India, Department of Telecommunication (in short, ’DOT’), by Circular No. 269 -10/89-STN, dated 7th November, 1989. The Circular mentioned that the 1989 Sche me was for conferring Temporary Status on casual labourers, who were ’currently employed’ and had rendered continuous service of, at least, one year. 7. In view of the fact that in the present set of writ petitions, we are co ncerned with the conferment of Temporary Status on the petitioners, who claim to be casual labourers of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India , it is apposite that we take note of the relevant portion of the 1989 Scheme, w hich deals with the terms and conditions governing conferment of temporary statu s on the casual labourers in the Department of Telecom. The relevant portion of 2. 3. ment of Telecommunications. 4. 5. the 1989 Scheme read as under: (cid:28)Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme. *** 1. *** The scheme will come into force with effect from 01.10.1989 onwards. This scheme is applicable to the casual labourers employed by the Depart *** *** Temporary status (i) Temporary status would be conferred on all the casual labourers curr ently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year o ut of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 da ys in the case of offices observing five days week). Such casual labourers will *** *** be designated as Temporary Mazdoor. (ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to t he creation/availability of regular Group ’D’ posts. *** *** *** *** *** *** (cid:29) (Emphasis added) 8. The important features of the terms and conditions, governing conferment of Temporary Status on casual labourers, as appearing in the 1989 Scheme, are ( i) that the 1989 scheme came into force with effect from 01.10.1989 onwards; (ii ) that the 1989 Scheme was/is applicable exclusively to the casual labourers emp loyed by the Department of Telecommunications; (iii) that Temporary Status was t o be conferred on all the casual labourers, who were ’currently employed’, mean ing thereby that Temporary Status was to be conferred on those casual labourers only, who were working, as casual labourers, on the day of coming into force of the 1989 Scheme (i.e., 01.10.1989) and who had also rendered a continuous servic e of, at least, one year and, out of this period of one year, they ought to have been engaged, on work, for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of office s observing five days week) and (iv) that such conferment of Temporary Status w ould be without reference to the creation/availability of regular Group ’D’ post s. We, now, take note of the post 01.10.1989 scenario in relation to the co 9. nferment of Temporary Status on casual labourers. In this regard, it may be not ed that by a subsequent Office Memorandum, issued by the Government of India, De partment of Telecom, bearing No. OM No. 169-1/93 STN-II(Pt), dated 12.02.1999 (h ereinafter referred to as the ’OM dated 12.02.1999’), it was clarified by the DO T that the DOT had imposed ban, with immediate effect, on recruitment/engagement of casual labourers by withdrawing powers of all DOT officers to engage casual labourers. It was mentioned in the OM, dated 12.02.1999, that after the issuanc e of the letter, dated 22.06.1988, authorizing/empowering DOT officers to recrui t/engage casual labourers, a need was felt to amend Para 193 of the P&T Manual, Vol. X, and, consequently, the powers of all DoT officers to engage casual labou rers, either on daily or monthly wages, direct or through contractors, as well a s the authority of the Accounts Officers for making payment to the labourers eng aged on daily or monthly wages, either direct or through contractors, were withd rawn with immediate effect. In the said Office Memo, dated 12.02.1999, it was a lso made clear that notwithstanding the withdrawal of power, so far as engagemen t of casual labourers was concerned, the instructions, contained in the Office M emo aforementioned, would not apply to hiring of any labourers for works of con tingent nature lasting not more than fifteen days during exigencies and natural calamities, that payments to such labourers, who might be hired during contingen cies, should be made under Rule 331 of P&T FHB Vol. I. and further that the maxi mum period for which an individual labourer can be hired, during a given year, s hould not exceed sixty days. 10. The OM, dated 12.02.1999 (hereinafter referred to as the ’1999 Scheme’), made it clear that the casual labourers, who had been engaged before 30.03.1985 and who had completed 10 years of service, were eligible for regularization. T he 1999 Scheme made it further clear that even though there was a complete ban o n recruitment of casual labourers, many telecom circles had been recruiting casu al labourers, defying the ban imposed, and that since the Employees Union of the DoT had been pressing for regularization of the casual labourers, who had been recruited after 30.03.1985 and completed 10 years of service, the Telecom Commis sion had decided, as a one time measure on special consideration, to delegate po wers to all the Heads of Circles, Metro Districts, Chief General Managers, MTNL, New Delhi and Mumbai and Heads of Administrative Units to create posts of Regul ar Mazdoors for regularizing the Casual Labourers under the 1989 Scheme, who had completed 10 years of service as on 31.03.1997, to the extent of numbers indica ted in Annexure ’A’ to the 1999 Scheme, which had been compiled based on the inf ormation received from the Circles/Units and that the posts were to be created w ithin the prescribed ceiling as on 31.03.1991. The other conditions, stipulated in the letter, dated 17.03.1992, aforementioned, however, remained unchanged. For a better appreciation, the relevant portions of the 1999 Scheme are reproduc ed below: (cid:28)G.I., Dept. of Telecom, No. 269-4/93-STN-II, dated 12th Feb, 1999 & & & & &.Casual labourers, who were engaged before 30.03.1985 and had completed 10 years of service, were made eligible for regularization. Based on the above, in structions were issued vide this office letter No. 5-1/92-TE-II, dated 17.03.199 2, 06.07.1993, 20.05.1994, 08.05.1995 and 30.09.1999. Even though there is a complete ban on recruitment of casual labourers, it has c ome to light that many circles, defying the ban corders, had recruited casual la bourers even after the ban orders. Since these casual labourers have completed 10 years of service, Employees Union are pressing for the regularization of the remaining casual labourers, who were recruited after 30.03.1985 and completed 10 years of service on the analogy of earlier decisions of Supreme Court on the su bject. Under these circumstances, the matter has, once again, been examined and it has been decided by the Telecom Commission as a one time measure on special consider ation to further delegate powers to all the Heads of Ciecles, Metro Districts, C hief General Managers, MTNL, New Delhi and Mumbai and Heads of Administrative Un its to create posts of Regular Mazdoors for regularizing the Casual Labourers (G rant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1989, who have completed 10 years of service as on 31.03.1997 to the extent of numbers indicated in Annexur e ’A’, which has been compiled based on the information received from the Circle s/Units. The posts are to be created within the prescribed ceiling as on 31.03. 1991. The other conditions stipulated in the letter, dated 17.03.1992, remain u nchanged. Approval of Telecom Commission is also conveyed for delegation of powers to gran t temporary status to casual labourers to the extent of number indicated against the respective circles in Annexure ’B’, which also has been compiled based upon the information furnished by the Circles/Units concerned. As the numbers indicated in the Annexure ’A’ and ’B’ are furnished by the Circle s/Units concerned, there should not be any variation in the figures in case ther e is change. Heads of Circles should refer the cases to TCHQ explaining the rea sons therefore. Recruitment of casual labourers was completely banned with effect from 22.06.198 8 and instructions were issued time and again for identifying the officers/offic ials responsible for engaging casual labourers in spite of the ban order. & & & & & & & & & Annexure ’A’ TSMs eligible for regularization as on 31.03.1997 (engaged between 01.04.1986). TSM to be regularised MTNL BY 11 Circle SLTTC A & N AP AS BH BRBRAITT CHENNAI TD 0 0 NCES NE 329 NETF 77 NTP NTR 48 0 24 31 179 108 0 82 OR PB 5 27 97 0 0 0 151 0 7 4 26 102 CTD DNW ETP ETR GUJ HP HR J&K KRL KTK 238 MH 21 MP MTNL DI 39 0 0 48 0 5 0 37 0 OA RAJ RE NAGPUR STP STR T&D JBP TN TS CA UPE UPW WB WTP WTR TOTAL 106 15 3 189 72 2081 23 4 0 OR PB MTNL BY 0 249 31 50 NA 0 0 NA NA 347 NCES NE NETF NTP NTR CLs to be granted tem- porary status Annexure ’B’ Casual labourers to be given Temporary Status as on 01.08.98 Circle SLTTC A & N AP AS BH BRBRAITT CHENNAI TD CTD DNW ETP ETR GUJ HP HR J&K KRL KTK NA MH NA MP MTNL DI 15 OA RAJ RE NAGPUR STP STR T&D JBP TN TS CA UPE UPW WB WTP WTR TOTAL 450 1 318 229 177 790 25 27 24 188 200 NA 350 119 26 4046 6 29 0 160 0 0 56 105 12 16 (Emphasis added) 11. While considering the 1999 Scheme, it needs to be borne in mind that thi s Office Memorandum was meant for conferment of Temporary Status on casual worke rs and also for regularization of the casual workers, who had been recruited aft er 30.03.1985 and had completed 10 (ten) years of service, this scheme of regula rization being a one-time measure. The 1999 Scheme also made it clear that powe r had been delegated for granting of Temporary Status to the casual labourers to the extent of number indicated against the respective circles in Annexure-B app ended to the 1999 Scheme. 12. In fact, we may pause, at this stage, to point out that Annexure-A to th e 1999 Scheme makes it abundantly clear that as far as Assam Circle was concerne d, the number of Temporary Status Mazdoors, eligible for regularization, as on 3 1.03.1997, were 77, and NTP 179; but, so far as conferment of Temporary Status w as concerned, there was, in terms of Annexure-B to the 1999 Scheme, none and, in respect of NTP, the number was 50. 13. Thus, though the 1999 Scheme provided for conferment of Temporary Status on casual labourers, the particulars, shown by the respondents/authorities conc erned, indicated that, in respect of Assam Circle, there was no eligible casual labourer for conferment of Temporary Status. 14. Nonetheless, the 1999 Scheme made it crystal clear that the 1989 Scheme was not the conclusion of the chapter as regards conferment of Temporary Status on casual labourers, but the 1989 Scheme was extended, for the purpose of confer ment of Temporary Status, till 01.08.1998. Hence, any casual labourer, who had been on employment till 01.08.1998, was entitled for conferment on Temporary Sta tus if he/she had continuously worked for a period of at least one year and out of this period of one year, he/she they must have had been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week). 15. Subsequent thereto, the Government of India, Department of Telecommunica tion, issued another Circular, bearing No. GI., Department of Telecom., No. 269- 13/99-STN.II, dated 01.09.1999, clarifying that in the matter of granting of Tem porary Status to the casual labourers, the Circular/Order, dated 12.02.1999, wil l apply w.e.f. 01.09.1999. The relevant portion of the Circular read as under: (cid:28)G.I., Department of Telecom, No. 269-13/99 - STN. II, dated 01st September, 199 9. Grant of temporary status from 12.02.1999 to the Telecom casual labourers, who a re eligible as on 01.08.1998 and regularization of eligible TSMs w.e.f. 01.04.19 97. I am directed to refer to letter No. 269-4/93-STN II, dated 12.02.1999, circula ted with letter No. 269-13/99-STN II, dated 12.02.1999, on the subject mentioned above. In the above referred letter, this office has conveyed approval on the two items , one is grant of temporary status to the casual labourers eligible as on 01.08. 1998 and another on regularization of casual labourers with temporary status, wh o are eligible as on 31.03.1997. Some doubts have been raised regarding date of effect of these decisions. It is , therefore, clarified that in case of grant of temporary status to the casual l abourers, the order, dated 12.02.1999, will be effected w.e.f. the date of issue of this order and in case of regularization to the temporary status Mazdoors el igible as on 31.03.1997, this order will be effected w.e.f. 01.04.1997. (Emphasis added) 16. It is, thus, obvious, that in terms of the 1989 Scheme, there ought to h ave been no fresh engagement of casual labourers since after 30.03.1985. Conseq uently, the cases of casual labourers, who were engaged after 30.03.1985 and who were required to be conferred Temporary Status, had to be referred to Telecom C ommission with relevant details and particulars. 17. Clause 3.3. of the DoT Circular, dated 07.11.1989, made it clear that no casual labourer, who had been recruited after 30.03.1985, should be granted Tem porary Status without specific approval from the Department of Telecom, Governme nt of India. Though the 1989 Scheme mentions that the 1989 Scheme would come in to force on 01.10.1989 onwards the Scheme, under Clause (i) of Para 5, mentions nevertheless, that temporary status would be conferred on all the casual labour ers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of alteast one year out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week). 18. A careful reading of Clause (i) of Para 5 of the 1989 Scheme clearly sho ws, if we may reiterate, that the 1989 Scheme was meant for those casual laboure rs, who were ’currently employed’, meaning thereby that the 1989 Scheme covered only those, who were under employment on 07.11.1989 (i.e., the date on which the DoT Circular No. 269-10/89-STN, dated 07.11.1989, was published), and this sche me of conferment of Temporary Status was to be a one-time measure. 19. Consequently, those casual labourers, who were not under employment in t he DoT, on 07.11.1989, fell outside the 1989 Scheme and those, who were under em ployment as casual labourers on 07.11.1989, could have been granted Temporary St atus provided that they had rendered continuous service of, at least, one year a nd, out of this period of one year, they ought to have had worked for a period o f 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week). 20. Thus, a casual labourer, who had not completed one year of continuous s ervice as casual labourer, or, a casual labourer, who had completed one year of continuous service as casual labourer but, out of this period of one year, if he had not been engaged, on work, for, at least, 240 days (206 days for offices ob serving five days week), then, such a casual labourer would not have been, under the 1989 Scheme, entitled to conferment of Temporary Status. 21. However, notwithstanding the conditions, so imposed by the 1989 Scheme, as indicated above, a controversy appears to have had arisen with regard to the question as to whether the 1989 Scheme was or was not an ongoing scheme or wheth er it was a Scheme, which was meant to be a one-time measure ? This was clarifi ed by the Government of India by bringing out the 1999 Scheme, which we have alr eady discussed above, whereby the power of the DoT officers to engage casual lab ourers had been withdrawn and the authority of the Accounts Officer for making p ayment to the casual labourers had also been withdrawn with immediate effect. H owever, the DoT Officers were given the liberty to hire labourers for works of c ontingent nature, during exigencies and natural calamities, but such engagement was not to exceed 15 days at a time and not more than 60 days in a year. 22. According to the 1999 Scheme, the casual labourers, who had been engage d before 30.03.1985 and who had completed ten years of service, were eligible, u nder the 1989 Scheme, for conferment of the status of Temporary Mazdoor. But th ose, who were engaged after 30.03.1985 and completed ten years of service were a lso to be given Temporary Status as per Annexure-’B’ appended to the said Office Memorandum. While Annexure-’A’ related to regularization of Temporary Status M azdoors as Regular Mazdoors, Annexure ’B’ related to conferment of Temporary Sta tus. 23. It is also worth noticing that Annexure-B clearly shows that there was n o casual labourer within Assam Circle of the DoT for conferment of Temporary Sta tus. The present petitioners belong to Assam Circle. Hence, as per the 1999 Sch eme, the petitioners were not entitled to conferment of Temporary Status. 24. Coupled with the above, and as already pointed out above, the Government of India, DoT, brought out another Office Memorandum, vide No. 269-13/99, dated 01.09.1999. By the said Office Memo further clarification was made with regard to he 1999 Scheme and the date of effect to be given to such eligible casual lab ourers was clarified, as 01.08.1998, for Temporary Status and, as 31.031997, for Regular Mazdoors. Thus, the petitioners would have been entitled to conferment of Temporary Status under the 1989 Scheme if they satisfied the conditions embo died in the 1989 Scheme and if the petitioners or any of them had been engaged, as casual labourer(s), after the 1989 Scheme had come into force, then, too, suc h casual labourer(s) would have become entitled to conferment of Temporary Statu s in terms of the scheme as embodied in Office Memo dated 01.09.1999, which prov ides that if any of the casual labourers stood engaged on 01.08.1998, as casual labourer, and if he/she had already rendered continuous service of, at least, on e year and, out of this one year, he/she had been engaged on work for a period o f 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week), he/she wo uld be entitled to be conferred the status of Temporary Mazdoor. To put it a little differently, from the clarifications, contained in th 25. e 1999 Scheme and the Office Memoranda, dated 01.09.1999, what becomes clear is that notwithstanding the use of the expression, (cid:28)onwards (cid:29), in the 1989 Scheme, the 1989 Scheme was meant to be a one-time measure and not a continuous scheme; but, by virtue of the Office Memo, dated 01.09.1999, a casual labourer became en titled for conferment of Temporary Status if he/she stood engaged as casual labo urer on 01.08.1998 and if he/she had already rendered continuous service of, at least, one year and, out of this period of one year, he/she had been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five da ys week). 26. It is to be noted, with regard to the above, that the DoT was transfo rmed into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) with effect from 01.10.2000 and, a ccordingly, all liabilities, financial and otherwise, which the DoT had, were sh ifted to BSNL. While WP(C) No. 8557/2005, instituted by some of the present peti tioners was pending, the jurisdiction to adjudicate the cases, relating to the p etitioners, had been conferred on the Central Administrative Tribunals. The reco rds of the writ petition stood, therefore, transferred to the Central Administra tive Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, by virtue of provisions of the Administrative Tri bunal Act, 1985. 27. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, dismissed the petitioners’ application (TA 39/2009) alongwith a series of similar cases, involving the same issues, by its order, dated 22.01.2010, on the ground that the TAs and OAs were without any merit inasmuch as the Committee, which had been constituted by the respondents for examining the cases of the petitioners, had duly considered all relevant mat erials placed before it with regard to the petitioners’ claim for conferment of Temporary Status, that the petitioners had failed to make out any case establish ing any illegality, irrationality or mistake committed by the said Committee at the time of considering the petitioners’ claim, that the directions issued by th e Tribunal, on earlier occasion, had been scrupulously complied with and that th e petitioners had failed to make out that any case establishing that they had an y legal right to claim Temporary Status and, consequently, regularization. 28. From the fact that the 1989 Scheme mentions that the Scheme would come i nto force with effect from 01.10.1989 onwards, what can be derived is that the 1 989 Scheme was to be enforced prospectively with effect from 01.10.1989. The fa ct that the 1989 Scheme did not apply to anyone, who was not under employment on 01.10.1989 or thereafter, is clear from the fact that the Scheme mentions that Temporary Status could be conferred on all casual labourers currently employed. The expression (cid:28)currently employed (cid:29) would obviously mean one, who was in employ ment on 01.10.1989. This apart, in order to be entitled to receive Temporary St atus, a casual labourer was required to have rendered continuous service of, at least, one year and, out of this one year, he/she must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days w eek. 29. The 1999 Scheme shows that notwithstanding the fact that the 1989 Scheme was introduced as a one-time measure, engagement of casual labourers by DoT con tinued and the Telecom Commission decided, as a one-time measure and on special consideration, to further delegate powers to all the Heads of Circles, Metro Dis trict, Chief General Managers, MTNL, New Delhi and Mumbai and Heads of Administr ative Units to create posts of Regular Mazdoors for regularizing the Casual Labo urers under the 1989 Scheme, who had completed 10 years of service as on 31.03.1 997, to the extent of numbers indicated in Annexure ’A’ to the 1999 Scheme, whic h had been compiled based on the information received from the Circles/Units and that the posts were to be created within the prescribed ceiling as on 31.03.199 1, the other conditions, stipulated in the letter, dated 17.03.1992, remaining u nchanged. This apart, the Circular, dated 01.09.1999, aforementioned made it fu rther clear that a casual labourer was entitled to be conferred the status of Te mporary Mazdoor provided that he was on engagement, as a casual labourer, on 01. 08.1998 and had already rendered continuous service of, at least, one year and, out of this period of one year, he/she had been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week). 30. Annexure ’A’ to the 1999 Scheme shows that, in Assam, the number of Temp orary Status Mazdoors (TSM), eligible for regularization, as on 31.03.1997, were 77 and NTP 179 and, as far as conferment of temporary status was concerned, the re was, in terms of Annexure-B, none and NTP 50. 31. The figures, which have been mentioned under Annexure ’A’, may or may no t be correct; but if anyone, who is not included within the figure mentioned und er Annexure ’B’, claims conferment of Temporary Status, he/she has to prove his/ her case that he/she was under employment on 01.10.1989, when the 1989 Scheme ha d come into force, and that he/she had already rendered continuous service of, a t least, one year out of which he/she had been engaged, on work, for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week) meaning the reby that one, who stood engaged as a casual labourer, on 01.10.1989, would be e ntitled to be conferred Temporary Status provided that, on 01.10.1989, he/she ha d completed continuous service of, at least, one year, as casual labourer and, o ut of this period of one year, he/she had been engaged, on work, for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week). This apar t, even such a casual labourer, who had been on engagement on 01.08.1998, became entitled to be conferred the status of Temporary Mazdoor if he/she had already rendered, on 01.08.1998, continuous service of, at least, one year and, out of t his period of one year, he/she had been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five days week). 32. Be that as it may, what attracts our attention, most prominently, is the fact that while the petitioners have claimed that they are still working as cas ual workers under the respondents and they are entitled to be conferred the stat us of Temporary Mazdoors and the benefits accruing therefrom, the respondents v ehemently deny the claim of the petitioners. 33. In the light of the 1989 Scheme, which we have interpreted above, the Of fice Memoranda, which were issued by the Government of India, DoT, from time to time, as well as the claims of the petitioners, on the one hand, and the respond ents’ rigid stand denying the petitioners’ claim, on the other, it was, in our considered view, wholly indispensable, on the part of the learned Tribunal, to r ecord evidence of the parties concerned. In other words, while the petitioners have claimed to have been in the service of the respondents, as casual labourers , and to have had satisfied the conditions precedent for conferment of Temporary Status, the respondents have vehemently denied the petitioners’ claim. In such circumstances, determination of such disputed questions of fact demanded recordi ng of evidence of the parties concerned. 34. In the case at hand, however, the disputed questions of fact were decide d by the learned Tribunal without recording any evidence. This was, we have no hesitation to hold, and we do hold, wholly illegal and untenable in law (See Sec tion 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985). 35. For the purpose of clarifying the position of law, one may take note of sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985, which contains the procedure and power of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Sub-Se ction (3) of Section 22 reads as under: (cid:28)22. (1) **** **** **** (2) **** **** **** (3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under t his Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following m atters, namely : (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oa th; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; **** **** **** (cid:29) 36. On a bare reading of Clause (c) of sub-Section (3) of Section 22, it bec omes clear that the Central Administrative Tribunal has the power to receive evi dence on affidavits and it has also the power to requisition any public record o r document or any copy of such record or document from any office and that it ha s also the power to summon and enforce attendance of any person and examining hi m on oath. There is, thus, no impediment in determining and settling the disput ed questions of fact by the learned Tribunal by taking recourse to it powers as embodied in sub-Section (3) of Section 22. 37. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it is appropr iate, in our considered view, that having clarified the scheme for conferment of Temporary Status on casual labourers under the 1989 Scheme and also under the 1 999 Scheme, the matter be remanded back to learned Tribunal, which has the requi site jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputed questions of fact, by recording ev idence, which may be adduced by the parties concerned and/or by obtaining such e vidence as may be necessary for a just decision of the case. 38.
Decision
In the result, the order, dated 22.01.2010, passed by the learned Centra l Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, is set aside and quashed and the lear ned Tribunal is hereby directed to decide the Transfer Applications and Original Applications, namely, TA No. 39/2009 [WP(C) No. 2945/2011], OA No. 195/2009 [WP (C) No. 6918/2010], TA No. 62/2009 [WP(C) No. 1363/2010], OA No. 205/2009 [W P(C) No. 4059/2010], TA No. 10/2009 [WP(C) No. 18/2012], TA No. 03/2009 [WP( C) No. 2163/2011] and TA No. 29/2009 [WP(C) No. 849/2012] in the light of t he observations made, directions contained in this order and the law relevant th ereto. 39. ll stand disposed of. With the above observations and directions, all these writ petitions sha