UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM DAYAL PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents status is in dispute. While they claim to be casual labourers engaged by the petitioners and seek benefit of petitioners' Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation) Scheme dated 1.10.1989. Petitioners are disowning them. According to petitioners, they were engaged by a contractor who was asked to supply them security guards. Short question that arises, therefore, is whether respondents were casual labour or contract labour and whether they were entitled to the benefit of petitioners' Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation) Scheme.

(2.) Respondents filed OA No.287/2001 before CAT and claimed that they were casual labour engaged by petitioners and were entitled to grant of temporary status under petitioners' scheme dated 1.10.1989 under which they had become eligible in terms thereof. They accordingly asked for direction to petitioners to confer them temporary status under the scheme and to restrain them from disengaging them.

(3.) Petitioners disputed their status in their reply and claimed that they were at no point of time engaged by them. On the contrary, they had assigned the supply of security guards to a private contractor and, therefore, these respondents could not claim to be the casual labourers engaged by them.