N VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is distressing to note that the beneficial schemes like the instant one concerning the writ petition, have been grossly misused by the persons who are not eligible under the said schemes, thus depriving the persons who are really entitled thereto. A laudable policy was evolved by the Government to construct the quarters for the industrial workers and after sometime of occupation, to regularise the same on hire-purchase basis. Rules have been framed in that] regard. Rules contemplate allotment of a Quarter to an industrial worker who is actually working on the said date and after some time, enter into an agreement with him to transfer the said quarter to him on hire-purchase basis. No industrial worker was entitled to occupy the quarter unless allotment is made specifically in that regard. Here is a case before me in which the petitioner even though was an industrial worker and was allotted a quarter bearing No. 101 at; Vijayawada, did not occupy the same and instead let out the same to the third respondent herein who was later impleaded by reason of ordering of W.P.M.P. 17497/88 on September 19, 1988. The third respondent admits that he was inducted into possession by the petitioner and had been paying a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. He had also given a voluntary statement to that effect to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who had conducted enquiry and which was the basis for the passing of the impugned orders of cancellation. In fact, Mr. SA. Hussaini, learned Counsel for the third respondent states that his client had been in possession of the said quarter No. 101 even before the allotment of the quarter in favour of the petitioner when the same was under allotment to one Mr. Papa Rao and also Mr. Wahab. It is his case that since the third respondents' father was not an industrial worker and was not entitled to the allotment of the quarter and to occupy the same, the third respondent's father was instrumental in getting the said quarter No. 101 allotted in favour of the petitioner and he had been in occupation by paying the rent as mentioned above. It is further contended by Mr. S. A. Hussaini that since the third respondent had now become an industrial worker and even though his father had originally occupied the house and he had been staying along with his father, he is entitled for allotment of the said quarter and that not only the petitioner's allotment was liable to be cancelled, the third respondent was entitled for allotment in place of the petitioner. The learned counsel further argues that for getting the allotment it is not the criteria that the person has to be inducted validly into possession. According to the learned counsel, the possession is a material factor and it need not be traced to a valid right of induction. He lays emphasis on the words "existing occupant" and wants this court to interpret that "existing occupant" means actual occupancy without even there being any valid or legal basis. Mr. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends, that even though the petitioner was not in possession of the quarter in question, as he was residing elsewhere because of the illness of his parents, now that he strictly needs the quarter in question, the possession of the quarter ought to have been restored to him as sought for in the writ petition. In view of what is stated supra, the undisputable facts which emerge are;

(2.) It may be true, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he was not put on notice when the Assistant Commissioner of Labour has enquired into the matter. But no prejudice is caused as admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of the same and that the third respondent's father had been in possession. However, the nature of possession is disputed as to whether the third respondent's father was a tenant or it was only a permissive possession to just look after the house without payment of rent. But the rules governing the situation I clearly prohibit even the parting of possession on sharing basis or otherwise. The very object and intendment of the scheme is to see that an industrial worker who has got no house is entitled for allotment of the house with the sole object of giving shelter to him and not to abuse in this fashion. In my considered opinion, both the petitioner and the third respondent and his father have abused and misused this beneficial scheme and they are not entitled for allotment of this quarter. The impugned order passed by the first respondent does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise and absolutely no prejudice is caused either to the petitioner or to the third respondent and they have got no legal or valid basis for agitating their rights.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.