DEVINDER Vs. INSTITUTE FOR THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 The Institute for the Physically Handicapped to reinstate him as a casual labourer with all consequential benefits and back wages and further to confer on the petitioner, the status of a temporary workman in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 10th September, 1993 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and a further direction for considering him for absorption as a regular employee of the respondent Institute. It is the case of the petitioner that he has worked as a casual labourer in the respondent Institute for a period of about two years continuously without any sort of technical break at all and is entitled to the benefit of the Office Memorandum aforesaid. The petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 1996 relying on State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 and Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha JT 1995 (4) SC 264.

(2.) Upon notice of the writ petition being issued, the respondent Institute filed a counter affidavit contending that under the Office Memorandum aforesaid, the status of temporary would be granted to those casual labourers who were in employment on the date of issue of the same and who had rendered continuous service of at least one year i.e. for a period of 240 days or 206 days as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was contended that the petitioner who as per his own averments joined the respondent Institute as a casual labourer after the date of the said Office Memorandum is not entitled to the benefit thereof. It was pleaded that the engagement of the petitioner was only seasonal and on contract basis; that the petitioner at no stage worked for the respondent Institute for a continuous period of 240 days or more.

(3.) The petitioner in the rejoinder of course controverted the averments in the counter affidavit.