Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana & Anr.

“1. Whether the termination of the services of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void and not binding on the right of the plaintiff on the grounds alleged in the plaint? OPP

2. Relief.” The Trial Court found that the appellant had completed regular service of 482 days and in view of the law laid down in the case of Anoop Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 1991 Simla Law Journal 735, his services could be terminated only by following a procedure prescribed under law. Finding that no notice was served on him or retrenchment compensation paid, the order of termination was held bad on account of violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance was also placed on the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1989 Recent Service Judgment 465 to observe that daily wager worker, casual labourer and work charge employees, who had put in more than one year of service could not be terminated as they would have attained the status of regular employee. Thus, basically the suit was allowed in view of the law laid down in the case of Piara Singh (Supra). The plea raised on behalf of the respondents that the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.710 OF 1992 :{ 3 }: Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the judgment in the case of Piara Singh (supra) in an SLP filed by the State, was ignored on the ground that there was no stay, when the impugned order was passed by the respondents. Second issue considered by the Trial Court related to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the plea was that appropriate remedy was to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. This plea was rejected by the Trial Court. The first Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding of the Trial Court only on the ground that the appropriate remedy for the appellant was to approach the Labour Court, since the Public Works Department was concededly an `industry'. Thereafter, the first Appellate Court did not decide the other issues on merit. There may not be a need to go into the validity of the finding returned by the first Appellate Court regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. Case for interference in the impugned order is called for as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has subsequently set-aside the order passed by this Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra) and this judgment is reported as State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130. It is observed as under so far as the case of workman is concerned:- “The High Court has also directed that all those employees who fall within the definition of `workmen' contained in the Industrial Disputes Act will also be entitled to regularisation on par with the work-charged employees in whose case it is directed that they should REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.710 OF 1992 :{ 4 }: be regularised on completing five years of service in Punjab and four years of service in Haryana. This direction is given in favour of those casual labour and daily wagers who fall within the definition of workmen. In so far as work-charged employees, daily wage workers and casual labourers who do not fall within the definition of Workmen are concerned, the High Court had directed their regularisation on completion of one year's service. We find this direction as untenable as the direction in the case of adhoc/temporary employees. In so far as the person belonging to the above categories and who fall within the definition of Workmen are concerned, the terms in which the direction has been given by the High Court cannot be sustained. While we agree that persons belonging to these categories continuing over a number of years have a right to claim regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the principle enunciated by this Court, the blanket direction given cannot be sustained. We need not, however, pursue this discussion in view of the orders of the Government of Haryana contained in the letter dated

6.4.1990 which provide for regularisation of these persons on completion of ten years. We shall presently notice the contents of the said letter. In view of the same, no further directions are called for at this stage. The Government of Punjab, of course, does not appear to have issued any REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.710 OF 1992 :{ 5 }: such orders governing these categories. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Government of Punjab to verify the vacancy position in the categories of daily wagers and casual labour and frame a scheme of absorption in a fair and just manner providing for regularisation of these persons, having regard to their length of service and other relevant conditions. As many persons as possible shall be absorbed. The scheme shall be framed within six months from today.” Thus, the finding of the Trial Court given on the basis of law laid down in Piara Singh's case (supra) can not be upheld. The right to regularisation of an employee on completion of 240 days service has not been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reference can also be made to the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 (1) SCT 214 to observe that mere completion of 240 days service in itself does not confer on the workman any right to be absorbed in regular service. It is further observed that daily wager, temporary employees or casual workers have no right to continue to hold the post. Court has held that there is a distinction between the temporary and permanent government employees. Relevant observations are as under:- “13. It may be mentioned that a daily rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. V. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) SCT 760 (SC): 1991 (1) SCC 691. The REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.710 OF 1992 :{ 6 }: term 'temporary employee' is a general category which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual employee, daily rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc.

14.The distinction between a temporary employee and a permanent employee is well settled. Whereas a permanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary employee has no right to the post. It is only a permanent employee who has a right to continue in service till the age of superannuation (unless he is dismissed or removed after an inquiry, or his service is terminated due to some other valid reason earlier). As regards a temporary employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no right to the post at all. Hence, it follows that no direction can be passed in the case of any temporary employee that he should be continued till the age of superannuation.

15.Similarly, no direction can be given that a daily wage employee should be paid salary of a regular employee vide State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003 (4) SCT 485 (SC): 2003 (6) SCC 123.” Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed without going into the validity of the view expressed by the first Appellate Court in regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed being without merit. May 18, 2010 khurmi ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE