BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. BSNL Vs. BIDHYADHAR TANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Nath, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 21, 24 to 50 and 52.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) challenging the order dtd. 8/4/2014 passed by the learned Member, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, in Original Application No. 205/2009.

(3.) The private respondents before this court were working as part-time Casual Workers in BSNL. The admitted position is that a part-time casual employee has to work for at least 240 days without break in a calendar year for being entitled to temporary status/regularization as Casual Workers. Since the private respondents before this court were not being given temporary status or regularized as Casual Workers, they filed an Original Application, being O.A. No. 205/2009, before the CAT, Guwahati Bench. The pleaded case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that they had worked under the BSNL for 240 days continuously in a calendar year and were entitled for regularization. Moreover, the grievance of the petitioners was that many part-time Casual Workers, who were junior to the petitioners, were retained by the BSNL but the petitioners were placed under the contractors without following the "Last Come First Go" principle. The Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dtd. 8/4/2014. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the BSNL before this court in a number of writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C) 2945/2011. The writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this court vide order dtd. 19/3/2013 observing that since the subject matter of the writ petitions was conferment of temporary status/regularization to the writ petitioners and since the only dispute between the parties was whether the writ petitioners, who were working as contractual workers/part-time Casual Workers in the BSNL had worked for 240 days continuously in a given calendar year, the Tribunal was competent to decide the question as the Tribunal has got powers to appreciate evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal was directed to decide the matter and pass appropriate order on the basis of evaluation of evidence. The relevant part of the order of the Division Bench is reproduced below: