UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.D. Baruah, learned CGSC for the petitioner and Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The respondents before us, namely, Ram Prasad Rai, Danbir Mahanta, Jit Bahadur, Mahandra Rai, Mainuddin Ali and Rikhi Ram Biswakarma as applicants, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench for issuing direction to the respondents therein i.e. Union of India and Commanding Officer of the Air Force Station, Misamari that the applicants be allowed to continue in their service as temporary employees with full privilege under the Rules as per the Office Memorandum dated 10.09.1993 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, Department of Personnel and Training and not linked with regularization of their services, as is being mentioned by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its Order. It is the case of the Private Respondent that they were engaged as casual labour on various dates during the period of 1989-90 at Air Force Station, Misamari Sampur and since then they have been regularly working as casual employee till October, 1993 when they have been asked by the Commanding Officer not to perform their work.

(3.) It is the case of the Private Respondents that the Government of India has framed a scheme called "Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme of 1993"), under which they are entitled to temporary status with all benefits as available under the Scheme. After submission of Return by the Union of India, the matter was referred to by the Tribunal for enquiry to find out whether the private respondents have been engaged as casual labour as is being claimed by them. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report before the Tribunal holding therein that the private respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were never employees of the Air Force and one of the applicants, namely, Rikhi Ram Biswakarma, was employed for a duration of 157 days i.e. from 28.05.90 to 31.10.1990. After submission of the report, the private respondents had produced before the Tribunal the certificates issued by the Flying Officer (Senior Administrative Officer), Air Force Station, Misamari dated 01.03.1993 to the effect that the private respondents have been working as casual labours and that they are honest workers and bear good moral character. The Tribunal had also given an opportunity to the Union of India to produce the relevant registrar of payment, vouchers and book of accounts relating to payment of casual workers so as to indicate that none of these documents contain the names of the private respondents as casual labourer and that they have never been paid by the Air Force for performing duties as casual labours. Adminttedly, the office of the Air Force is maintaining the registrar of payment, vouchers and books of accounts relating to payment to casual workers. Yet, the same have not been produced before the Tribunal. On consideration of the certificates issued by the Respondent authority placed before the Tribunal and because of non-production of best evident available, the Tribunal has reached to the conclusion that the private respondents were engaged by the Air Force as casual workers between 1989- 90 and were continuously working with the Air Force. Having arrived at this findings, the Tribunal has committed an error in giving direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the applicants relying on a decision of the Apex Court in All India Statutory Corporation vs United Labour Union and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 645.