SUNDER LAL MALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a gross violation of the provisions of Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957 and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) BRIEF facts as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Ward Boy in Mobile Surgical Unit on 12. 09. 1989 and that his services were terminated on February 2, 1990 by a verbal order and that it is only on March 4, 1992 that the petitioner has come to know that other persons have been given fresh appointment w. e. f. 13. 10. 1990. Notice for demand of justice was sent by the petitioner on 11. 03. 1992, in which these facts were mentioned. The matter was examined by the Director, Mobile Surgical Unit Rajasthan, Jaipur and the counsel for the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 28. 03. 1992 that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Ward Boy on daily wage basis as the post of Ward Boy was not lying vacant at that time. It was informed that he was engaged as casual labour on 14. 09. 1989 for loading and unloading work for the camps and his wages have already been paid to him for his working days against lump sum amount and that the petitioner remained absent from his duties thereafter. It was also informed that the question of maintaining any seniority list of the casual labour does not arise since the Surgical Camps are organised in the rural areas for providing medical facilities to the poor villagers and as and when casual labours are needed for loading and unloading work for the above purpose, the casual labour up to a particular number are engaged out of the available labourers in the campus of central store. Such labourers are paid their wages for the days they have actually worked and this type of casual labours are not engaged for a continuous period. The petitioner, thereafter has again written a letter on 1. 04. 1992 and the reply of that letter was sent with a request to send copy of the appointment order of the petitioner on the post of Ward Boy, by which he is alleged to have been appointed on 12. 09. 1989 and a copy of termination order may also be sent.

(3.) IN the present case, from the documents produced by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Ward Boy on 12. 09. 1989 as alleged by him. The petitioner was engaged as casual labour on 14. 09. 1989 for loading and unloading work for Camps of Mobile Surgical Unit. It is also clear that the petitioner has not continuously worked and in a case where the appointment is made of a casual labour on day to day basis then the contract would be considered for a day for which he has worked. It cannot be considered to be a continuous service. IN the judgment of Rajasthan Pul Nigam Workers (supra) it has been observed that in course of time the Courts have themselves evolved certain self imposed limitations on the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia and the discretion to issue a writ, order or directions can be exercised for refusing issuance of such writ, order or direction if the writ petition suffers from delay or laches or the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief or issuance of writ would amount to restoration of illegality or violation of any constitutional or legal provision or when there are seriously disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined without evidence or where an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available.