MOHAMMAD CHAND PASHA Vs. A P FOODS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners in regular cadres according to G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994. According to the petitioners they were appointed in March 1991 but their services were terminated in the year 1993 arbitrarily and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners are workmen employed in the factory run by the respondent-organisation which is under the purview of the Societies Registration Act. The petitioners questioned the termination before the Labour Court, Hyderabad and by an Award dated 25-8-1995 the Labour Court directed the respondent-authority to reinstate them in service. To-day I have dismissed Writ Petition No.1429 of 1996 confirming the Award of the Labour Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have completed five years of continuous service that itself indicate that there is continuous work available in the respondent-organisation and their services have to be made permanent instead of giving them casual work day after day and keeping them in state of tension as to the duration of their service. The respondent has filed Counter-affidavit stating that the provisions of G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 are not applicable to the factory and that the data available indicates that they do not have sufficient number of working days to accommodate the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the Circular dated 24-4-1997 in Memo No.44902/476/A2/PC.III/96 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh advising all the Corporations to implement the provisions of the said G.O. dated 22-4-1994 and submitted that this indicates the fact that the Government itself was of the view that the provisions of this G.O. should be applicable to all Government undertakings. He also contended that in the cases of similar undertakings, such as, State Housing Board etc., this Court has been giving directions to the Corporation to consider the cases of the employees interms of the said G.O.

(2.) The crucial question in this case is whether the G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 is applicable to the factories run by the Government Corporations etc. The said G.O. gives an assurance that those who were irregularly appointed will not be terminated abruptly and instead of termination, the management authorities will have to regularise their service. This assurance was required to meet the objections raised in a case in the Supreme Court questioning the validity of Act 2/94. It is because of the promulgations of the G.O. that the provisions of the said Act were upheld by the Supreme Court. The Act stated that irregular appointments in Offices and establishments owned and controlled by the State Government Corporations are to be regulated. Section 3 of the Act provides: the appointment of any person in any public service to any post, in any class, category or grade as a daily wage employee is thereby prohibited. 'Public Service' was defined in Section 2 of the Act that services in any Office or establishment of the Government, a Local authority, a Corporation or undertaking wholly owned or controlled by the State Government. It is because of this definition that the circular has been issued by the Government extending the benefits of the said G.O. to the Corporations owned by the State Government, such as, Housing Board etc. But they are concerned only with the employees working in the office or establishment of factories run by the authorities under the control of the State Government. Section 7 of the Act provides that no person who is a daily wage employee and no person who is appointed on a temporary basis under Section 3 and is continuing as such at the commencement of this Act shall have or shall be deemed ever to have a right to claim for regularisation of services on any ground whatsoever and the services of such person shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reasons. The proviso to this section states that in the case of Workmen falling within the scope of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, one month's wages and such compensation as would be payable under the said Section shall be paid in case of termination of services. It is provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the Workmen governed by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The provisions of G.O.Ms. No.212, dated 22-4-1994 gives effect to the modifications of the provisions of this section which provides for termination of unauthorised and irregular appointments. The question is whether this Section 7 can be resorted to terminate the services of the workmen in a factory run by a Corporation controlled by the State Government. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative then the affected workmen can seek protection of G.O.Ms. No.212. However I am of the considered view that the answer to this question is in the negative. In the case of a factory there is no question of permanent employment as such employee has no right to treat his services as conferment of status. That can arise only in an establishment or office under the control of Government inasmuch as the definitions referred to above are to apply only to an establishment or office under the control of Government, but not a factory. The factories are run on commercial lines. The engagement of workmen is according to the needs of the factory. If there is any dispute as to the number of persons needed, an industrial dispute has to be raised and the number of required employees will be recruited according to negotiated terms. The question of irregular appointments cannot arise when daily workmen are not confirmed and the engagement in services will be a matter of Industrial Dispute and cannot be regulated by Act 2/88 (sic. 2/94). In that view of the matter the question of the petitioners seeking regularisation under Article 226 does not arise.

(3.) The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs.