ANIL KUMAR Vs. INDIAN AIRLINESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal questions the correctness of the judgment dated 12th August, 2014 in a bunch of petitions that were filed praying for quashing of the oral termination orders dated 12.10.2005 and for a relief to allow the petitioners to continue to work as casual labour/helper with the respondent Indian Airlines Limited at the Amausi Airport, Lucknow and to consider the claim of regularization of the petitioners with all consequential benefits and pay salary at par with the minimum of regular pay scale applicable to regularly appointed helpers in the respondent organization.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that primarily the petitioners had been engaged as casual labour and had continuously worked, they were not holding any post and had no right to the post and their status and rights were such, that the petitioners were not entitled to any of the benefits keeping in view the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 4 SCC 1. The learned Single Judge also relied on other decisions that have been discussed in the judgment at several places to deny the benefits as claimed by the petitioner appellants.

(3.) SRI Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Single Judge treated the claim of the appellants confined only to the plea relating to their right to continue in employment on the strength of Article 14 and 16, but has not correctly appreciated the facts that were brought on record for the purpose of invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India, whereby the appellants had pleaded that their very right to life was being infringed as their only source of livelihood of even casual engagement had been unceremoniously withdrawn by way of an oral termination order, for which there is no justification. He contends that this part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is so fundamental, that its withdrawal amounts to withdrawing the very source of life and in the circumstances he contends that such a right which is available to every person of this country, ought to have been considered, which the learned Single Judge has omitted to do.