STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DIWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. THE respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration that he is regular employee of the appellant and is entitled to salary and allowance w.e.f. 01.09.1988.

(2.) THE respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Driver on daily wages on 09.06.1988. THE daily wage rates were ordered to be paid at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh. THE respondent-plaintiff continued to work as Driver. He had accordingly filed the suit pleading that he should be deemed to be a regular employee as he has completed 240 days service with the appellant- State. This suit was filed when he learned that the services were likely to be terminated without any justifiable cause and without affording any opportunity. 6. THE appellant-State appeared and contested the suit. THE preliminary objection was raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. THE suit was also said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In reply to merits, it was stated that the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Driver on 09.06.1988 on daily wages and remained on duty till 12.09.1989. It was, however, pleaded that he did not come under the provisions of being regularised on the basis that he never completed 240 days. Accordingly, prayer was made to dismiss the suit. THE suit was decreed primarily on the ground of ratio of law laid down in Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1988(4) SLR 739. It was noticed by the trial Court that the respondent-plaintiff was to be treated as a work-man and he had completed 240 days of regular service in the calendar years from 09.06.1988 to 12.09.1988 and as such he had attained the status of regular employee. This issue was accordingly decided in his favour. 7. THE State had filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff had been working for more than 240 days in the calendar year and thus the order of termination was in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. THE State accordingly has filed this Regular Second Appeal. 8. While admitting the appeal, the operation of the impugned judgment was stayed. THE learned State counsel, today, would point out that the ratio of law laid down in the case of Piara Singh (supra) was subsequently reversed in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130. So far as the right of work man, who has completed 240 days is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: THE High Court has also directed that all those employees who fall within the definition of `workmen' contained in the Industrial Disputes Act will also be entitled to regularisation on par with the work-charged employees in whose case it is directed that they should be regularised on completing five years of service in Punjab and four years of service in Haryana. This direction is given in favour of those casual labour and daily wagers who fall within the definition of workmen. In so far as work-charged employees, daily wage workers and casual labourers who do not fall within the definition of Workmen are concerned, the High Court had directed their regularisation on completion of one year's service. We find this direction as untenable as the direction in the case of adhoc/temporary employees. In so far as the person belonging to the above categories and who fall within the definition of Workmen are concerned, the terms in which the direction has been given by the High Court cannot be sustained. While we agree that persons belonging to these categories continuing over a number of years have a right to claim regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the principle enunciated by this Court, the blanket direction given cannot be sustained. We need not, however, pursue this discussion in view of the orders of the Government of Haryana contained in the letter dated 6.4.1990 which provide for regularisation of these persons on completion of ten years. We shall presently notice the contents of the said letter. In view of the same, no further directions are called for at this stage. THE Government of Punjab, of course, does not appear to have issued any such orders governing these categories. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Government of Punjab to verify the vacancy position in the categories of daily wagers and casual labour and frame a scheme of absorption in a fair and just manner providing for regularisation of these persons, having regard to their length of service and other relevant conditions. As many persons as possible shall be absorbed. THE scheme shall be framed within six months from today. Reference can also be made to the case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 (1) SCT 214 to observe that mere completion of 240 days service in itself does not confer on the workman any right to be absorbed in regular service. It is further observed that daily wager, temporary employees or casual workers have no right to continue hold the post. Court has held that there is a distinction between the temporary and permanent government employees. Relevant observations are as under: 13. It may be mentioned that a daily rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. V. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, 1991 (1) SCT 760 (SC): 1991 (1) SCC 691. THE term 'temporary employee' is a general category which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual employee, daily rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. 14. THE distinction between a temporary employee and a permanent employee is well settled. Whereas a permanent employee has a right to the post, a temporary employee has no right to the post. It is only a permanent employee who has a right to continue in service till the age of superannuation (unless he is dismissed or removed after an inquiry, or his service is terminated due to some other valid reason earlier). As regards a temporary employee, there is no age of superannuation because he has no right to the post at all. Hence, it follows that no direction can be passed in the case of any temporary employee that he should be continued till the age of superannuation. 15. Similarly, no direction can be given that a daily wage employee should be paid salary of a regular employee vide State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003 (4) SCT 485 (SC): 2003 (6) SCC 123. THE substantial question of law regarding the right of regularisation of the work charge employee, who has completed 240 days service thus arises in this case. THE same is required to be answered in the manner as having been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Piara Singh and Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra). Even in regard to the observation to grant equal pay for equal work also cannot be sustained, as the daily wagers, cannot be equated for grant of pay alongwith the regular employee. In this case, reference can be made to State of Haryana versus Jasmer Singh AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1788. THE present appeal is allowed. THE judgment under appeal is set aside. THEre shall be no order as to costs.