DEFENCE ELECTRONICS RESEARCH LABORATORY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 14.01.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in M.A.21/34/2020 in OASR 100/2020, whereby the learned Tribunal had declined to grant interim order in favour of the petitioners .

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1, Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DLRL) Casual Workers Union filed an OA challenging the notification No.DRDO Entry Test: 2019-20/MTS inserted in Employment News December 21-27 of 2019 issued by the respondent No.2. According to the petitioners, the said advertisement was issued for recruiting 1,817 personnel for different vacancies. Furthermore, according to the petitioners, the trade union has been fighting a protracted litigation since 2005 for seeking permanent employment by way of regularization for its members in DLRL situated in Hyderabad. Moreover, according to the petitioners, on an earlier occasion, when the respondents tried to replace the members of the trade union, who are casual labourers, with another set of temporary employees, they had challenged the said move made by the respondents by filing WP.No.21456 of 2008. In the said writ petition, this Court had directed the respondents to continue the services of the members of the trade union. Similarly, on another occasion when the same move was made by the respondents, certain members of the trade union had filed another writ petition, namely, WP.No.3901 of 2019. By order dated 26.02.2019, a learned Single Judge had directed that the services of the petitioners therein should be continued. Furthermore, according to the petitioners, they had raised an industrial dispute, against the respondents. By order dated 03.08.2009, the Government of India made a reference as follows:

(3.) Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since the matter is sub-judice both before this Court and the Industrial Tribunal, the learned Tribunal should have granted an interim order in favour of the petitioners by staying the recruitment process.