RAMESH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was engaged as a Peon-cum-Messenger on 21.1.1993 by respondent No. 2-Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as "HAL"). He was admittedly appointed as a daily wager. Petitioner submits that he made various reprentations to respondent No. 2 for his appointment on regular basis. He further submits that even his superior officers including Deputy General Manager of respondent No. 2 had recommended the Corporate Office at Bangalore for appointing the petitioner on regular basis and although there was regular vacancy of the Peon-cum- Messenger, petitioner was not regularised and instead his services were terminated on 4.7.1997. At the time of termination of his services, he was getting Rs. 87.00 per day. He says that he is fully eligible to be appointed to the post of Peon-cum-Messenger on regular basis and this writ petition is filed challenging his disengagement/termination w.e.f. 4.7.1997 as illegal and seeking direction that he should be declared to be regular employee of the respondent No. 2. He has also claimed reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) In support of petitioner's case. Counsel for the petitioner referred to Office Note dated 25.6.1995 as per which Deputy General Manager has mentioned that although the Office is in operation for more than six years, no messenger has so far been posted and it is further mentioned that petitioner is appointed as Daily Wage Worker who is doing necessary job and it is recommended that he should be recruited as permanent employee against Scheduled Caste quota. Similar request is made vide telegram dated 14.9.1995 from the Delhi Office to Bangalore Corporate Office requesting to grant permanent employee/casual worker status to the petitioner. Petitioner has also relied upon letter dated 10.11.1995 from Delhi Office to Corporate Office, Bangalore as per which Delhi Office has an authorised establishment of two messengers and one sweeper and one watch and ward guard. Reference is also made to Certificate dated 15.12.1995 issued by Deputy General Manager, Delhi Office commending the work of the petitioner. On the basis of these documents and averments made in the petition, the petitioner argued that the post of Peon is available in Delhi Office of the respondent and the petitioner is eligible for the said post and he already having worked for four years as the necessary experience. Therefore, petitioner should have been appointed on regular basis and in fact he is deemed to have been regularised. Accordingly, the services could not be terminated and the termination should be set aside and he should be declared regular employee.

(3.) Respondents have filed the counter-affidavit refuting the averments made by the petitioner. Relying on these averments. Counsel for the respondents argued that the Dy. General Manager, Delhi had no power or authority to make any appointment, and therefore, engagement of the petitioner was without any authority. It was further contended that the petition raised disputed questions of facts, which could not be agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the petitioner had alternate efficacious remedy available to him under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It was further contended that there was no question of automatic regularisation merely because the petitioner had worked on daily wage basis for certain period when he was engaged by the officer who was not the Appointing Authority. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the Personal Manual of the HAL to contend that Deputy General Manager was not the Appointing Authority. He further contended that the post of Peon on regular basis could be filled only as per the Recruitment Rules and after following proper procedure. Petitioner wanted establishment of his rights by way of this writ petition, although no such right existed in his favour.