SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wager to do Clerical job by the Government Institute of Hotel Management and Catering, Dehradun on 1st August, 1986. Since 18th December, 1989, he was not engaged as such. Petitioner contended that he has thus been disengaged. He, accordingly, approached the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer opined that having been engaged by the Government Institute of Hotel Management and Catering, Dehradun Petitioner was not an industrial worker and, accordingly, he was not entitled to protections available to industrial workers under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner was rejected. Petitioner then filed a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal, Uttarakhand. In the claim petition, Petitioner claimed restoration of his status plus regularization. Tribunal by its order dated 7th April, 2003 held that no civil right of the Petitioner has been interfered with by not engaging the Petitioner on Daily Wage basis since after 18th December, 1989. When it was contended before the Tribunal that the Petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a year, Tribunal held that the Petitioner ought to have been advised to seek recourse to Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) In the present writ petition, therefore, it has been contended that the Petitioner has been denied the Forum under the Industrial Disputes Act to seek redressal of his grievances and at the same time he has been denied the Forum of the Tribunal.

(3.) No effort has been made by the Petitioner to establish that the institution, in which he worked, is an Industry. That being the situation, Petitioner is not entitled to obtain reliefs under the Industrial Disputes Act. Working of 240 days in a year entails certain rights under the Industrial Disputes Act in the matter of disengagement of a workman. That has no application in relation to a Daily Wage worker. The status of a Daily Wager is that his engagement commences in morning of the day and comes to an end in the evening of the same day. If he works on the next day, he is engaged for that day only and the previous engagement, as such, does not continue. That being the situation, the Petitioner had no right either to ask for restoration of status, for he had no status, nor he could ask for regularization in asmuchas, it has not been brought on record that for having had worked, as such, the Petitioner acquired any right under any law to be regularized. In that background, as it appears to us, the Tribunal rightly held that there is not infringement of any civil right of the Petitioner.