1. Dukhu Pradhan, Son of Late Bandhu Pradhan, Resident of Village – Koinsara, P.O v. The Employers in relation to the Management, Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. –
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No.6470 of 2010 1. Dukhu Pradhan, Son of Late Bandhu Pradhan, Resident of Village – Koinsara, P.O. – Koinsara, P.S. – Lapung, District – Ranchi 2. Raghunath Pradhan, son of Shri Jatru Pradhan, Resident of Village – Ithe (Khunti), P.O. – Murhu, P.S. – Murhu, District - Khunti … … Workmen/Petitioners Versus The Employers in relation to the Management, Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. – Ranchi, District – Ranchi … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners For the Respondent --- : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate --- 15/05.07.2023 Learned counsels for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “That the instant Application is directed against the Award dated 05.07.2010 of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred as to the Tribunal) in Ref. No.44 of 2003 and Ref. No.54 of 2003 respectively, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has concerned the Reference in favour of the Respondent holding that the demand of concerned workman/ Petitioner no.1 Dukhu Pradhan and Workman/Petitioner no.2 Raghunath Pradhan for regularization is not justified and consequently the Workmen are not entitled to get any relief: And A Direction be issued to the respondent to reinstate the concerned workmen (Petitioners No.1 & 2 (respectively) in service with full back wages; And / or Be further pleased to issue/pass such other suitable Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) As Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 3. This writ petition has been filed against the common award dated 05.07.2010 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No.44 of 2003 and Reference Case No.54 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal has held that the demand of the concerned workmen in each case for regularization is not justified. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondent to reinstate the concerned workmen in service with full back wages. The terms of reference in Reference Case No.44 of 2003 and 2 Reference Case No.54 of 2003 have been quoted in the impugned award which is as under:
Legal Reasoning
“The Schedule in Reference No.44 of 2003 “Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi in terminating the services of Sh. Dukhu Pradhan, Casual Labour instead of regularizing his services is legal and justified? If not to what relief he is entitled to?” The Schedule in Reference No.54 of 2003 “Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi in terminating the services of Sri Raghunath Pradhan, Casual Labour w.e.f. 19.6.1999 instead of regularizing his services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?” 4. The petitioner no.1 is the concerned workman in Reference Case No.44 of 2003, and petitioner no.2 is the concerned workman in Reference Case No.54 of 2003. 5. In Reference Case No.44 of 2003, it was the specific case of the workman that he was working as casual labour in Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi since 1988 and was engaged in perennial nature of work and was discharging his work sincerely at all times with entire satisfaction of his superior till 30.08.1991. It was his further case that other workmen who were working with him as casual labour were regularized by virtue of the order/award of the Central Industrial Tribunal by the then Management in the year 1991, but he was not granted the same relief as he demanded payment of wages. The management terminated his service by saying that he should not come to duty from 01.09.1991. The workman was neither issued any notice to this effect nor he was paid wages for notice period nor was paid compensation on his retrenchment/ termination. 6. The workman filed a writ petition before this Court being
Decision
CWJC No.1905 of 2000 (R) which was disposed of vide order dated 06.07.2000 with a direction to the workman to make representation before the authority concerned. The workman filed his representation on 03.08.2000 to which the management replied stating that the workman had not completed 240 days of service and that he had worked on daily 3 wage basis from May, 1990 to August, 1991 but not exceeding 10 days in a month. This aspect of the matter was disputed by the workman and his specific case before the learned Tribunal was that he has completed 240 days on daily wages basis as casual labour. 7. The management also filed the written statement stating that the workman was engaged on daily wage and was being paid the rate as unskilled labour. He was engaged for a few days on daily wage basis from May, 1990 to August, 1991 not exceeding 10 days in a month. It was also stated that the regularization of other workman was made after fulfilling the criteria of the existing rule and they had filed a case for their regularization before Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and they were regularized as per the award passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in 1991 which was upheld up till the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The specific case of the management was that the workman had not completed 240 days continuously in a calendar year and worked on job contract basis for few days from May, 1990 to Aug, 1991 not exceeding 10 days in a month. 8. So far as the Reference Case No.54 of 2003 is concerned, the specific case of the petitioner no.2 was that he was working as casual labour in Doordarshan Ranchi since 01.01.1986 engaged in perennial nature of work and discharged his work sincerely till 19.06.1999. His services were terminated w.e.f. 19.6.1999 by a verbal order. Initially he was working as peon and subsequently work was taken from him as helper in transmission work. It was also stated that a certificate to this effect was given on 18.3.1997 by the Station Engineer certifying that it was working as casual helper in group ‘D’ since 1988. The management had furnished the name of casual worker who has rendered/completed more than 240 days service in Doordarshan Kendra till 01.03.1990 vide letter dated 10.01.1991 and his name was incorporated at sl. No.18, but the Administrative Officer of Doordarshan Kendra had wrongly 4 shown that the workman was deployed from February, 1990 and he had worked for only 19 days till 01.03.1990. Due to such wrong recording, he suffered and his case was not taken up for regularization in the year 1991. However, he continued to make application for redressal of his grievance and ultimately, he filed a writ petition before this Court in CWJC No.1905 of 2000 (R) and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to submit representation. The workman filed representation dated 03.08.2000 and as per the reply dated 24.11.2000 to the representation, it was stated that the workman had worked only a few days and he was not entitled for regularization. 9. On the other hand, the written statement of the management was that the workman had worked only for 19 days in the year 1987 on daily wages and after that from January, 1990 to August, 1991 on daily wages not exceeding 10 days in a month. Thereafter on monthly job contract basis at TV Transposer at Ramgarh for cleaning, watching and ward work. The payment was made for the days of work as casual labour on daily basis. The specific case of the management was that the workman had worked on daily wage basis during January, 1990 to August, 1991 not exceeding 10 days in a month and thereafter for a short period on job contract basis. It was further case that the workman had not completed 240 days of work in a particular calendar year and was not entitled to regularization. 10. Both the cases were taken up together by the learned Tribunal. 11. On behalf of the workman in both the reference cases, the concerned workmen were examined. On behalf of the workmen, two documents were produced and marked as Exhibit W-1 and W-2. On behalf of the management, the only witness examined as MW - 1 who had also proved the documents marked as Ext. M – 1 to M- 12. 12. The learned court below considered the arguments of the parties and the materials on record and ultimately held with 5 respect to Dukhu Pradhan (petitioner no.1) in Reference Case No.44 of 2003 that he had stated in his cross examination that his name was forwarded from employment exchange with 15 persons and his nature of work was casual and three persons were engaged for 10 days in each month. The workman Raghunath Pradhan, who is the concerned workman in Reference Case No.54 of 2003 had stated in his cross examination that his name was forwarded through the employment exchange and his nature of work was casual. 13. By referring to the materials on record, the learned court below recorded that it showed from the evidence of the concerned workmen that they worked about 10 days in a month and as per Ext. M – 1 to M-12, the workmen had not worked for more than 10 days in a month. 14. The Ext. M – 1 to M – 12 were filed by the management before the learned Tribunal to substantiate their case on the point of nature, period and manner of engagement of the workmen. The learned Tribunal recorded that there was no document on behalf of the management or the workman to show that the concerned workman had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year and therefore the claim for regularization was declined. The evidence of Dukhu Pradhan indicates that he himself had stated that he joined Doordarshan on 01.1.1988 as peon and he worked up to 30.8.1991 and he worked two years continuously and after that only 10 days duty was given in a month by the management. He was removed as back as in the year 1991. He himself has stated in his cross examination that the names of 15 persons were called from the employment exchange and 3 persons were engaged for 10 days in each month. 15. So far as Raghunath Pradhan is concerned, in his evidence in chief, he stated that he joined as peon on 01.01.1987. He was removed from service on 19.06.1999. He was a casual labour from 1987 to 1999. He worked as helper from 01.01.1988 to 31.01.1990. However, in his cross examination, he has stated 6 that his name was forwarded through employment exchange. The nature of work was casual and that he had worked for the whole year from 1987 to 1991. 16. The learned court below after considering the evidences, recorded finding that the workmen had not completed 240 days of work in a calendar year. The workman had not produced any evidence to show that they had completed 240 days of work in a calendar year. The stand of the management was also supported by documentary evidences which were produced by the management Ext. M – 1 to M – 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned Tribunal. 17. The learned court below after scrutinizing the material on record both oral and documentary has recorded a finding that both the workmen did not complete 240 days of work in a calendar year and has declined their claim for regularization. 18. With regard to the petitioner no.1, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no.1 had worked in Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi since 1988 and was engaged in perennial nature of work and discharged his duty regularly without any break in service to the full satisfaction of his superiors till 31.08.1991. At that point of time, others were regularized, but the petitioner no. 1 was left out. He has also submitted that in the letter dated 10.01.1991 issued to the Director General, Doordarshan Bhawan, by the Administrative Officer, Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi, it appears that the name of the petitioner no. 1 was at serial no. 18 showing that his initial date of joining was May, 1990. 19. This Court is of the considered view that initial date of appointment has no bearing in the matter as what was required to be proved by the workman was his continuous engagement for more than 240 days in one Calander year. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has considered the materials on record and recorded finding that the petitioner 7 no.1 had not completed 240 days of work in one calendar year, there is no scope of reappreciation of materials and coming to a different finding under writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any perversity or illegality in the impugned award with regard to the case of the petitioner no.1 calling for any interference under writ jurisdiction. 20. With regard to petitioner no. 2, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner no.2 had worked under the respondent -Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi from 01.01.1986 in perennial nature of work till 19.06.1999, regularly, without any break in service, to the full satisfaction of the respondent. A letter dated 18.03.1997 (Annexure- 1 to the writ petition) was issued by the respondent which was a certificate by the station in-charge, Doordarshan Kendra, Ranchi stating that the petitioner no. 2 had discharged his duty as casual helper Group -D since 1988. He has further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal has misconstrued that the petitioner was engaged only for a few days on daily wages from May, 1990 to August, 1991 and did not work in a month exceeding 10 days and as a matter of fact, both the petitioners had rendered their services regularly without any break in service on sanctioned vacant post from the date of their joining to the date of their termination. 21. The learned counsel has also submitted that the entire attendance sheet has been brought on record before this Court by filing the same through supplementary affidavit which substantiates the case of the petitioners, but at the same time, he does not dispute that the said documents were not exhibited before the learned Tribunal. The affidavit in the present case annexing the said document has been filed vide rejoinder dated 25.08.2017. 22. This Court is of the considered view that there is no scope of considering new materials for the first time before the writ court, which were not produced before the learned Tribunal. 8 Accordingly, such documents filed vide rejoinder dated 25.08.2017 cannot be taken into account. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has considered the materials on record and recorded finding that the petitioner no.2 had not completed 240 days of work in one Calander year, there is no scope of reappreciation of materials and coming to a different finding under writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity or illegality in the impugned award with regard to the case of the petitioner no.2 calling for any interference under writ jurisdiction. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)