ASHULI KASHIPRI Vs. MANIPUR CEMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides, it appears to me that the Writ petitioners namely Shri Ashuli Kashipri and Shri Seram Dineshwar Singh, made a prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to regularise their services, as mines manager in case of petitioner No. 1 and mining mate in case of petitioner No. 2 in The Manipur Cements Limited (A Government of Manipur Undertaking & Government Company), Hundung Cement Factory, Hundung, District PS Ukhrul, Manipur, w.e.f the dates on the each of them had successfully completed the required course of their training, i.e. 11.11.1995 in the case of the petitioner No. 1 and 11.8.1995 in the case of the petitioner No.

(2.) According to the writ petitioner, petitioner No. 1 is a member of Scheduled Tribe of Manipur, and the petitioner No 2 is a member of Meitei OBC of Manipur. Petitioner No 1 is a holder of Degree of B.E.(mining) of a recognised university/institute, certificate of competency of 2nd class mines manager, certificate of Practical Experience of 1 1/2 years in limestone mines, and certificate of practical Experience for 6 months in'Other Mines than Limestone. On the recommendation of the related DPC, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Trainee for the post of Mines Manager, vide order No. M.CL-002/HD/90- 91 dated 13.11.90 issued by the respondents No. 1-to 3. as in Annexure A/1 to the writ petition. Likewise the petitioner No. 2 is a holder of Licenciate in Mining Engineering & Diploma of 3 years course in mining Engineering of recognised Institute, Foreman's Certificate of Competency, Certificate of Practical Experience for 1 year 3 months in Limestone Mines, and Certificate of Practical experience for 9 months in other mines than Limestone mines. On the recommendation of the concerned DPC the Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Mining Mate Trainee against the post of Mining Mate, vide order No. M.C.L.-002/HD/90-91 dtd 13.11.90 issued by the respondents No. 1 to 3 as in Annexure A/2 to the writ petition. All the petitioners were sent out for practical training to a Mine recognised by the DGMs for enabling them to obtain the statutory certificates as required under the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961 for their subsequent regular appointment, with a specific term and condition that their services would be regularised on their successful completion of the training course and on production of the required] certificates vide Resolution No 8 (d) of the Board of Directors of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 as communicated to these petitioners under letter No. MCL- 002/6/88-89/523 dtd. 11.3.1994 as in Annexure A/3 to the writ petition. Accordingly the petitioner No. 1 had undergone the required course of practical training for 1 year 6 months from 11.5.94 to 11.11.95 and in testimony whereof a Certificate of Practical Experience was granted by the Manager (Mining), Cement Corporation of India Limited, Dillai Parbat Limstones, Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Directorate General of Mines Safety; The petitioner submitted the said certificates to the respondents No. 1 to 3 on completion of the said course of training by requesting them to regularise his service as the Mines Manager. Likewise, the petitioner' No. 2 had under gone the required course of training for a period of 1 year 3 months from 11.5.1994 to 11.8.1995, the testimony where of a Certificate of practical experience was granted by the Manager (Mining), Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Dillai Parbat Limestones (Mines), Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Directorate 'General of Mines safety, Government of India. The Petitioner No. 2 also submitted the related certificate to the respondents 1-3 on completion of the said course of training by requesting them to regularise his services as Mining Mate. The true, copy of the photostate copy of those certificates are appended to this writ petition and marked as Annexure A/4 and A/5 respectively. Both the petitioners submitted joint representations to the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 on 6.5.96 and twice on 28.6.96 for regularising their services and for paying them their usual scale of pay prescribed for their posts particularly when other employees of these respondents had been given their salaries and allowances on the prescribed scales of pay of their posts. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that despite their submission of their further representations dtd. 12.7.96 and 16.7.96 to the respondent No. 2 demanding justice and equality for regularising their services as Mines Manager and Mining Mate respectively in fulfilment of the resolution and promise made by the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 the concerned respondents paid no head till date and accordingly, the writ petitioners approach this court for ventilating their grievances and for appropriate direction in the matter. 2. The case of the writ petitioners is resisted by the respondent Nos 1,2 and 3 by filing affidavit in opposition and contending interalia that the company has so far not offered any commitment and specific terms and conditions to the petitioners for regularisation of their respective services. The said letter No. MCL 002/6/88-89 dtd. 11.3.94 as in Annexure A/3 to the writ petition is an official document and not an order and that the same does not create any right in favour of the writ petitioners for regularisation of their services in the posts of Mines Manager and Mining Mate. As per related provisions of the staff Rule of the Company, the appointment of permanent staff in the company shall be made in accordance with the organisation chart of the Company recommended from time to time and approved by the Board of Directors. So far the training is concerned, the employee of the Company may be required to undergo training anywhere in India for such period or periods as may be considered necessary by the Board from time to time and upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Board. It has been further laid down that an employee directly appointed or promoted to any post, shall by an order in writing communicate the employee concerned that he has been confirmed in the post after the employee has successfully completed the date of probation vide Para 5.1 Chapter n, Para 5.2 and Para 5.3 of the Staff Rules of the Company. ,

(3.) It is also the case of the respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3 that the petitioner No. 1 had submitted an application along with a copy of the above Statutory Certificate to the respondent No. 2 on 12.7.96 requesting the 'Matter for regularisation of his services and as such, the company had no opportunity for initiating action for regularisation of the petitioner No. 1's services before 12.7.96 in absence of the required statutory Certificate. Similarly, the writ petitioner No. 2 had also submitted an application alongwith a copy of the above Statutory Certificate to respondent No. 2 only on 16.7.96 requesting the latter for regularisation of his services. Therefore, the Company had no opportunity for initiating action for regularisation of the writ petitioner No. 2's services before 16.7.96. According to the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3, the B.O.D. in it's 28th meeting held on 12.10.95 resolved that in view of the continuing difficult financial health of the company the services of the Staff, Hundung Cement Factory appointed on consolidated basis against the vacant post will remain as it is until the time when condition may be improved. In this regard the state Cabinet Committee in its report, copy furnished to the company under the Govt. Letter No. 58/2/96-IND dtd. 5.6.96 and received on 11.6.96 had recommended that an immediate lock-out of the Hundung Cement Factory may be declared and that specially all the casual and consolidated staff should be immediately terminated, and that, further appointment of any nature of what so ever shall be completely prohibited and banned in the Corporation. However; the Company again submitted its proposal to the Govt. for review of the above recommendation for lockout of the Hundung Cement Factory. The Staff strength of Manipur Cements Ltd., Hundung Cement Factory, hereinafter referred to as Hundung Cement Factory, is 63 numbers (excluding casual workers) including 45 numbers of regular staff and 18 numbers of staff appointed on consolidated pay basis. Out of the above 63 numbers of staff, only 45 numbers of regular staff have been given their salaries and allowances on the prescribed scale of pay of their posts and all the consolidated pay staff, including the present petitioners have not been provident with salaries and allowances on the prescribed scales of pay of their posts because of the nature of their appointment.