- (1.) The appellant was employed as a Junior Engineer on daily wages for a period of 100 days vide order dated 22-9-1988 in a scheme known as the Rural Employment Programme. There were two similar employment welfare schemes operating, known as the Rural Employment programme (REP) and the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee programme (RLEGP). The two Schemes were merged into one elaborate scheme known as the Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna or Jawahar Rozgar yojna. On completion of 100 days, his employment would have terminated automatically; however, the authority passed a specific order of termination dated 29-12-1988. Instead of being rendered jobless the appellant was offered yet another temporary employment in a scheme known as Jeevan dhara vide order dated 17-1-1989. The employment was extended from time to time up to 12-6-1989. The last order of appointment was for a period of 7 days issued on 24-6-1989 which came to an end on 30-6-1989. The appellant, and a few others similarly employed filed writ petitions in the High Court, which by an interim order protected their employment. However, the posts came to be abolished and the appellant's employment as also the employment of other similarly situated persons came to be terminated with effect from 7-5-1991, consequent upon the posts having been abolished. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court holding that as the posts themselves have been abolished the question of regularization did not arise. The High Court also held that the workmen given employment under the schemes got the employment on an ad hoc basis, and from the very beginning knew that the employment was of a temporary nature coterminous with the Scheme itself, and therefore they could not be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, so as to be entitled to the relief of reinstatement if the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with. The appellant filed a writ appeal which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High court. This is an appeal by special leave.
(2.) Shri Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted that without regard to the nature of employment, once a workman has worked in continuous employment for a period of 240 days his employment could not have been terminated except by complying with the provisions of Section 25-F; else he would be deemed to have been retrenched and entitled to the relief of reinstatement. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appellant is not entitled to any relief and the view taken by the High Court cannot be found fault with.
(3.) The nature of employment under the Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna came to be examined by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture employees' Union v. Delhi Admn. The Court found that the Scheme under which the petitioners therein were employed was evolved to provide income for those who are below the poverty line and particularly during the periods when they are without any source of livelihood and therefore without any income whatsoever. Such schemes were further meant for the rural poor, for the object of the Scheme was to start tackling the problem of poverty from that end. The object was not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural poor much less to the employed in general. The Union of India had filed a detailed affidavit showing the purpose and working of such schemes, which in their very nature could provide some employment to some people for some time and not an employment to all the employed for all times. The court held, "If the resources used for the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna were in their entirety to be used for providing full employment throughout the year, they would have given employment only to a small percentage of the population in need of income, the remaining vast majority being left with no income whatsoever. No fault could, therefore, be found with the limited object of the scheme given the limited resources at the disposal of the State. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to given them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularization, is to frustrate the scheme itself. No court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the schemes are meant. That would also force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them from introducing the new ones, for want of resources. This is not to say that the problems of the unemployed deserve no consideration or sympathy. This is only to emphasise that even among the unemployed a distinction exists between those who live below and above the poverty line, those in need of partial and those in need of full employment, the educated and uneducated, the rural and urban unemployed etc. " the Court emphasized how judicial sympathy with such workmen could boomerang upon the purpose of the Scheme itself and thereby in the larger context, deny the limited benefit extended by the State to the unemployed which would not be available but for such schemes. The Court held that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularized on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, as such directions lead to pernicious consequences. "Although there is an Employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the employment exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the employment exchange and the persons registered in the employment exchanges, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the employment exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the employment register. The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularization knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularized. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the employment exchanges for years. Not all those who gain such back-door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in government departments, public undertakings or agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour. The other equally injurious effect of indiscriminate regularization has been that many of the agencies have stopped undertaking casual or temporary works though they are urgent and essential for fear that if those who are employed on such works are required to be continued for 240 or more days have to be absorbed as regular employees although the works are time-bound and there is no need of the workmen beyond the completion of the works undertaken. The public interests are thus jeopardized on both counts. ";