STATE OF HARYANA Vs. FATEH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind. Respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a Beldar on daily wages/work charge basis on 1.3.1983. He continued to work upto 18.11.1988 without any break. He was, however, not allowed to work when he reported on 19.11.1988. His services were dispensed with without affording any opportunity. His grievance is that in his place one person, namely, Jai Bhagwan, was retained despite he having been appointed much after the respondent-plaintiff. He accordingly served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C and thereafter filed a suit for mandatory injunction for directing the respondent-State to permit him to join as Beldar on regular basis with all service benefits w.e.f. 19.11.1988.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the respondent-State. Some preliminary objections were raised on the ground that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties. It was pointed out that the respondent- plaintiff had himself absented from duty on 19.11.1988 and, thus, had no cause to file the suit. It was averred that the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as temporary Beldar on daily wages. In the year 1983, he worked only for 19 days, thereafter he was given chance to work on daily wages from time to time only against particular work on muster roll. THE claim of the respondent-plaintiff that he was in continuous regular service for more than 5-1/2 years, thus, was denied. It was pointed out that the respondent-plaintiff was required to work from 1.11.1988 to 20.11.1988 but he failed to attend the duties from 19.11.1988 onwards. Accordingly, the prayer was made to dismiss the suit.

(3.) WHETHER the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 5.WHETHER the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 6. WHETHER the plaintiff himself absented from the duties on 19.11.88 and therefore, he can not be allowed any benefits? OPD 7. WHETHER the plaintiff has not become regular employee of the State and, therefore, he is not entitled to file the suit? OPD 8.Relief. The suit was decreed and declaration was given that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to all the benefits like arrears of pay and benefits w.e.f. 19.11.1988. 4. The Trial Court had decreed the suit primarily in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1988(4) SLR 739. The State had filed appeal against this judgment. The judgment of the Trial Court was challenged on the ground that State had filed appeal against the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Piara Singh (supra) and, thus, the Trial Court had erred in relying on this judgment, which was yet to acquire finality. It was pointed out before the Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the SLP filed against the judgment of Piara Singh's case (supra). The first Appellate Court, however, viewed that mere pendency of SLP against Piara Singh's case (Supra) would not mean that the law laid down in this case by this Court would cease to be operative. : The learned State counsel would contend that subsequently the view expressed by this Court in Piara Singh's case (Supra) was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under so far as the case of workman is concerned: 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. The judgment under appeal, which was allowed on the basis of law laid down in Piara Singh's case (supra) can not be upheld. Once the right to regularisation of an employee on completion of 240 days service was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment under appeal can not be sustained. Right to regularisation has now to be viewed in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, 2006 (2) SCT 462 (SC).