PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claim to be persons who were being engaged as casual labourers by respondents 2 to 4. According to the petitioners they were being engaged for more than a decade. When attempts were made to disengage them they had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.942/2000. Ext.P2 is the order that was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Paragraph 4 of the said order reads as follows: -

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners is that though they have preferred I.A.26/2014 in I.D.33/2013 and I.A.27/2014 in I.D.33/2013, Exts.P9 and P10, no orders have been passed thereon till date. At the same time, it is alleged that the seventh petitioner has already been disengaged and the work that was being done by him is about to be given on contract to outsiders. The result would be that, the seventh petitioner would be rendered jobless. The petitioners apprehend that similar treatment would be meted out to the other petitioners also. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions in the matter.

(3.) ACCORDING to Adv.Saji Varghese who appears for respondents 2 to 4, the petitioners were being engaged only in a situation where a large number of land line connections had to be provided to the consumers. The demand for land line connections have reduced drastically with the popularity of the mobile phones. As a result, there is no work available, to be allotted to the petitioners. Whatever little work that arise are got done through independent contractors. Therefore, the respondents are not in a position to allot any work to the petitioners. It is also contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi(3) and others {(2006) 4 SCC 1} the claim of the petitioners is untenable.