MAHINDER SINGH Vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No.3116/2010, which was decided on 20.09.2010 at the admission stage with liberty given to the applicant to file representation within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order claiming his seniority over the juniors and giving specific grounds on which he should be considered by the Respondents for re -engagement as casual labourer, absorption and regularization in appropriate post with the Respondents. Respondents were also directed to consider the said representation of the Applicant alongwith the copy of that OA as a supplementary representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in the aforesaid terms respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure A -1), which is under challenge in this OA and the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) call for the records of the case; (b) pass an order quashing and setting aside order dated 14.03.2011 of respondent No.3 (Annexure -A). (c) pass an order directing the respondents to re -employ the applicant and further absorb the applicant in regular grades of Group D in the National Physical Laboratory or any other constituents of Respondent No.1 in accordance with the Scheme of 1995 (Annexure P -6). (d) pass such further or other orders which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel of the applicant at the admission stage. We are of the view that in view of the reasoning given in the impugned order the present OA is liable to be dismissed in limine. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the speaking and reasoned order passed by the respondents in extenso, which thus reads: No.1/147/Law/2008 -Vig. Dated: 14.3.2011 Shri Mahinder Singh, S/o Shri Khem Singh, R/o B -14, NPL Colony, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi -60. Subject: Representation for re -engagement and regularization in accordance with the scheme of 1995. Reference: Order of the Honble CAT in OA No.3116/2010. Sir, In pursuance of the directions of the Honble CAT order dated 20.09.2010 in OA No.3116/2010, the Director, NPL being the Competent Authority has considered your representation dated 01.10.2010 received in the office on

(3.) 11.2010 through CSIR vide its letter No.2/28(NPL)/2004 -EII dated 28.10.2010 alongwith the OA No.3116 of 2010. After taking into account the submission made by the applicant and the provisions of the scheme Casual Workers Absorption Scheme 1995 of CSIR and the facts and figures thereon, the Director, NPL has disposed off the representation as under: - 1. Facts of the case are that Shri Mahinder Singh (from hereon will be referred to as the applicant) was engaged from time to time for occasional/Intermittent nature of work from 1986 to 21.03.1990 and did not complete 240 days in any year as detailed in Annex A. After his discontinuation in March, 1990, Shri Mahinder Singh after a gap of 18 years raised an Industrial Dispute in 2008 with regard to his illegal termination by filing a claim petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation and the conciliation proceedings were declared a failure. The failure report and the facts of the case were considered by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. The Ministry vide order No.L -42012/83/2009 -IR(DU) dated 05.01.2010 (Anex. B), held that this not a fit case for adjudication for the following reason: The claimant has raised the matter belatedly after a lapse of around 18 years from time to time of his alleged discontinuity for employment. Hence the matter raised in ex -facie frivolous. 2. The submission of the applicant that he was appointed as casual worker on daily wages in NPL on 12.11.1986 and continued to discharge the duties of cleaning, sweeping etc. till 1990 when his employment was abruptly discontinued alongwith other casual workers is not correct as per the details of his engagement given in Annex. A. Further, he himself negated his averment by mentioning himself as Beldar/Mali in his Original Application filed before Honble CAT and at the same time stating that his duty is sweeping and cleaning etc. It is worth mentioning that since he was engaged on occasional/Intermittent work as per the requirement of job work his statement that his employment was abruptly discontinued does not hold ground. 3. The fact regarding filing of claim before the Assistant Commissioner Labour has been suppressed by the applicant in the representation and also in OA filed before the Tribunal much after the order of the Ministry of Labour in January, 2010. The applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands, he has suppressed the material facts and in this context it is pertinent to note that the applicant has mislead the Tribunal and abused the process of law by not disclosing before the Honble Tribunal. The claim of the applicant appears to be an after thought. Had the grievance of the applicant been genuine he would have approached for legal redressal within the time prescribed under law. This inordinate delay can not be allowed to be condoned as it would defeat the ends of justice and also set a bad precedent.