SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has passed has passed 10+2 examination and has obtained diploma in Electrical trade. He was appointed T-Mate on daily wage basis on 1.10.1999. He approached this Court by way of CWP No.267/2010 seeking regularization. The same was disposed of on 4.3.2010. Case of the petitioner was rejected on 18.5.2010.

(2.) According to the pleadings, petitioner has completed 85 days in the year 1999, 214 days in the year 2000, 229 days in the year 2001, 215 days in the year 2002, 219 days in the year 2003, 240 days in the year 2004, 228 days in the year 2005, 227 days in the year 2006, 249 ½ days in the year 2007, 366 days in the year 2008 and 365 days in the year 2009. The designation of the petitioner was also changed from Tmate to Electric Mistri with effect from 1.8.2005. Two incumbents, namely, Nika Ram and Murari Lal, were engaged after the engagement of petitioner with effect from 1.12.1999. These workmen were retrenched in the year 2001. They approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.(M) No.11 of 2011 and O.A. (M) No. 146 of 2001. These original applications were allowed by the Tribunal on 11.7.2001 and 5.11.2001. Nika Ram and Murari Lal have been regularised on 17.11.2008 and 27.11.2008. It is evident from the mandays’ chart placed on record by the parties that the petitioner has been prevented from completing 240 days to deprive him the status of work charge/regularization. There is shortage of 26 days in the year 2000, 11 days in the year 2001, 25 days in the year 2002, 21 days in the year 2003, 12 days in the year 2005 and 13 days in the year 2006 to complete 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. Petitioner has placed on record copy of letter dated 14.9.2007. It is established from the contents of letter dated 14.9.2007 that respondent-State had been following the practise of giving artificial breaks to the workmen to prevent them from completing 240 days. According to letter dated 14.9.2007, the workmen were to be engaged for 15/18/20 days every month. Now, as per letter dated 14.9.2007, the Principal Secretary (Public Works) has directed the Engineer-in-Chief, Chief Engineer and Superintending Engineers to ensure that the workmen are permitted to complete 240 days in a year and the persons, who were engaged before 2006 on the intermittent break basis, shall also be given muster roll for full month in relaxation of policy. There should not be any policy of the State Government contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Respondent-State has also not substantiated that there was any shortage of funds or work was not available. It is evident that the policy decision has been taken to prevent the workmen from completing 240 days in a year. The State cannot take a policy decision which affects the livelihood of the workmen and also prevents them from seeking benefits under the labour laws.

(3.) Petitioner has made a representation not to give him artificial breaks and thereafter he has not been given artificial breaks after 2007. The action of the respondents to give artificial/intermittent breaks to the petitioner to prevent him from completing 240 days in a block of calendar year is declared arbitrary and unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, respondents have also regularised the services of Nika Ram and Murari Lal, who were engaged after the petitioner on 1.12.1999 and the petitioner was engaged on 1.10.1999. Petitioner cannot be denied the regularisation firstly by giving him artificial breaks and then to argue that the petitioner belongs to Kullu Division. Consequently, Annexure P-8 dated 18.5.2010 is contrary to law and facts.