JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. I O C LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for direction against respondents to allow him to perform his duties as labour, which he had been performing in the respondent Corporation prior to 31.12.1991 and to treat him on duty for all intents and purposes from the date of his arrest and to allow all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is alleged that the petitioner's name was sponsored by Employment Exchange for being engaged as a labour in the respondent Corporation, as a result of personal interview held in August, 1984. The petitioner was engaged as a Labour w.e.f. 9.1.1986 through Office Order dated 28.12.1985 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner continued to be deployed as labour till 31.12.1991, whereafter he could not attend to his duties, as he was arrested in connection with a case for offence under Sections 302/323/34 Indian Penal Code registered on the basis of FIR No.2/92 of P.S. Dabri. After the petitioner was released on bail on 19.10.1992, he made representation to the respondent Corporation to allow him to work as labour, but his request was not acceded to. The petitioner was ultimately acquitted on 12.8.1994 vide judgement (Annexure P-7) delivered by Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi whereafter the petitioner again approached the respondent Corporation, but till filing of petition, the petitioner was not taken back on the same job, which he had been performing prior to his arrest. In this background, the petition was instituted on 16.3.1995 for the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) The respondent in reply filed on the affidavit of J.S.Kaushal, Manager (I.R.) of Indian Oil Corporation stated that the petitioner was kept on a panel of casual workers, who are sometimes required to work at the installation of the respondent Corporation at Bijwasan Terminal. The casuals are kept on a panel and are provided work, whenever it is available, on account of absentism and other unforeseen circumstances. The petitioner was never employed as a regular workman of the Corporation, but was only kept on panel. The policy regarding engagement of casuals in the respondent Corporation provides that in case a casual does not show up for work for more than ten days, his name is deleted from the approved panel. The petitioner failed to turn up for duty after 31.12.1991. No intimation was received from the petitioner. Therefore, a notice was sent to him on 6.2.1992. A letter was received in the Regional Office of the respondent Corporation from the Senior Terminal Manager stating that in the month of February, 1992, it was informed that the petitioner had been detained in jail in some murder case. Senior Terminal Manager thus recommended dispanelling of the petitioner from the authorised list of casual employees. As such, on 28.2.1992, an Office Order was passed dispanelling the petitioner's name from the approved list of casual labours, in accordance with the policy of the respondent Corporation. As such, it is stated that the petitioner, whose name was removed from the list of approved panel, has no right to be taken back after his acquittal.