CHIKKARAMAIAH Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner when appointed as a casual worker in the respondent-Public Road Transport Corporation with effect from 25.8.2004 pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court to treat him as a casual labor, a position, which he held prior to removal from service, alleging entitlement to regularisation, had his cause espoused through a Trade Union, which initiating conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ending in a failure report, whence the State Government by order dated 20.12.2007 referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication, registered as I.D.No. 280/2007. The point of dispute referred for adjudication was whether the Trade Union was justified in making a demand for regularisation of the petitioner's service in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner having filed claim statement, was resisted by filing counter statement of the respondent-Road Transport Corporation. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to the admitted facts and keeping in mind the authoritative pronouncement of the constitution bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others -v-Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 4 SCC 1 and observations in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Ganapathy Chaya Naik and Others, 2010 2 LLJ 293, concluded that the petitioner's claim for regularisation was not maintainable and accordingly, by the award dated 26.8.2011, rejected the reference. Hence, this petition.

(2.) The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors vs. Daya Lai, and Ors, 2011 2 SCC 429. summarized the well settled principles relating to regularisation and pay in parity thus :

(3.) In Union of India and Ors. vs. Vartak Labour Union, 2011 4 SCC 200 at paragraphs 17 & 20 following the earlier reported opinions and also that of the Constitution Bench in UMA DEVIs case opined that the respondent union's claim for regularisation of its members merely because they have been working for the BRO for a considerable time cannot be granted in the light of the decision of the Court: wherein it is consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or a casual worker is engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules.