RAM SAROOP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners joined as daily wagers with the Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, Chandigarh in June, 1988. On 1.1.1995 services of the petitioners were terminated, who, in turn, raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, Gurgaon, under Section 10(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 19.7.1996, a settlement was arrived at between the management and the workmen. The workmen were granted benefit of service but no back wages. On 7.3.1996, State of Haryana formulated and declared its policy of regularisation, which was amended by another notification dated 18.3.1996. A daily rated person or a casual employee who had completed three years of service and were satisfying other service conditions of regularisation, services of those employees were supposed to be regularised. On 5.6.1997 the petitioners represented to the respondents to regularise their services. They filed CWP No. 10340 on 22.7.1997, on which a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularisation. The said claim was not settled and the petitioners served a notice through their counsel on 3.10.2001 claiming the same relief. Vide reply dated 15.2.2002, Annexure P/9 to the writ petition, the claim of the petitioners was rejected by the respondents resulting in filing of the present writ petition.

(2.) Upon notice, the respondents filed written statement stating that the petitioners were only daily rated casual labours and are not engaged in any post, so they are not entitled for any regularisation. It is also pleaded that they do not fulfil the stipulated conditions for raising the claim for regularisation of services and as such they cannot be granted any relief. The advantage of the policy for regularisation can be given only if a regular post exists. The representation of the petitioners has been rightly rejected by the respondents and they pray that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents also raised a plea that the petitioners are seasonal workers in the Forest Department and as such no benefit of the policy can be given to them.