MOHD IQBAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks a direction to respondents to reinstate him in service as casual labourer as he has put in 240 days in a year in a project. He also seeks regularisation of service under SRO 64/94. It is admitted by the petitioner in his representation to the Minister for Forests which has been annexed as annexure - B to this petition that he was worked in social Forestry Department as daily wager from 8.1.1986 to ending 1989. He was disbanded in January 1990. Thereafter the petitioner has not been engaged. On the strength of this evidence, petitioner seeks re -instatement having work for a period of 240 days in the years 1986 to 1989.

(2.) PETITIONER is not a daily rated worker, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief for regularisation of service under SRO 64/94. He does not satisfy the requirement for Rule - 4 of SRO 64 which manqates that a daily rated worker who has completed seven years as daily rated worker is entitled to seek regularisation.

(3.) SO far as claim of the engaed on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be constructed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of retrenchment  therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court, the petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary. 