RAJ BALI YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this present original application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -

(2.) IN this eventuality applicant filed O.A. No. 656/2009 for reinstatement and also for regularization of his services. The O.A. was disposed of on 30.9.2010 directing the concerned Competent Authority to decide the representation which was pending before them by a speaking order within a period of two months and while deciding, copy of the O.A. may be treated as part of that pending representation. In pursuant to that order of this Tribunal the representation of the applicant was considered but it was rejected by letter dated 19.11.2010. Hence this is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal challenging the said rejection order.

(3.) IN contra the Counsel for the respondents stated that the applicant has approached this Tribunal without any jurisdiction as Indian Institute of Carpet Technology is not notified under Section (2) of Section 14 of the A.T. Act, 1985 hence the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. He also stated that the applicant was engaged through M/s. Prakash Punj Manav Kalyan Samiti which acts as a contractor and entered into an agreement with the respondents. The agreement was executed between the institute and M/s. Prakash Punj Manav Kalyan Samiti, Lacchapur, Ambwa Khurd Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi for providing man power to the institute and the engagement of the applicant is purely on contract basis and after the prescribed period the applicant stands automatically dis -engaged and for that no notice/no explanation/no reason is to be given to the applicant. The applicant is not an employee of respondent No. 3 and hence the application is not maintainable before this Tribunal. The Counsel for the respondents states that I.I.C.T. is an autonomous body under the aegis of Development Commissioner (Handicraft), Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and has been set up by the Ministry of Textiles Government of India as a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to provide much needed support to Textile, Carpet and allied industries. They are having their own laws and by laws. On the basis of by laws the executive committee of the institute vide minutes of meeting resolved the engagement of contract service through engagement of manpower agency which is evident from the bare perusal of the executive committee meeting dated 14.8.2001 in which in the agenda item No. 10, institute has approved the various contracts and also of engaging skilled/unskilled manpower for the purpose of smooth functioning of the institute. He also contends that the applicant is not an employee of the institute and hired by the agency and thereafter the agency provides service to the institute as per the agreement and the entire payments and benefits were handed over by the institute to the agency and the fact that the applicant is working on behalf of the agency on hourly basis is clearly evident from the letter issued by the man power agency. He also states that the letter dis -engaging the applicant was sent by the man power agency which also demonstrates that the applicant is not an employee of the institute. Hence the applicant has no right to continue in his job as the contract period is over. The Counsel pointed out that even no appointment letter was ever given to the applicant.