Decided on April 16,2012

Wild Life Institute Of India Appellant
Mukti Prasad Respondents


- (1.) Considered the objection filed to the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
(2.) Considered the averments made in the application for condonation of 119 days' delay in preferring the appeal. Reasons for delay, as furnished, do not inspire confidence of the Court, still then, inasmuch as a question of law has been raised, we allow the application for condonation of delay. (Special Appeal No. 09 of 2012) Facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are as follows:- (a) In the year 1985, appellant engaged the respondents as casual labourers; (b) in the year 1987, respondents were retrenched from their service; (c) an industrial dispute, thus arisen, was decided by an award granted by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi on 5th May, 2004, where it was held that retrenchment of the respondents was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it accordingly, directed, amongst others, that the respondents be reinstated in service; (d) in the meantime, on 10th September, 1993 a scheme known as "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation ) Scheme of Government of India, 1993" came into force; (e) the said Scheme was a one-time scheme and not a continuous scheme; (f) while the appellant challenged the award before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it reinstated the respondents on 8th February, 2004. Since then, the respondents continued to remain engaged by the appellant as casual labourers; (g) on 10th September, 2009 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rejected the challenge thrown by the appellant to the aforementioned award; (h) in the meantime, in the year 2008, appellant gave temporary status to 14 casual labourers, who had instituted Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1719 of 2001 and, on which writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 22nd August, 2003 directing the appellant to frame a scheme of regularization of the petitioners in the said writ petition in phased manner; (i) but while those 14 casual labourers were given temporary status, respondents herein were not. Respondents, accordingly, approached this Court by filing a writ petition and contended that they could not be treated dissimilarly with those 14 casual labourers. The writ petition has been allowed by directing the appellant to consider the case of the respondents for temporary status, as the appellant has given temporary status to those 14 casual labourers.
(3.) In the instant appeal, it is being contended that those 14 casual labourers came to this Court, when the respondents herein were not in the employment of the appellant and they also obtained an order from this Court on 22nd August, 2003 directing the appellant to frame a scheme of regularization of those 14 casual labourers, when also the respondents herein were not in the employment of the appellant. It was submitted that in those circumstances, respondents herein could not compare themselves with those 14 casual labourers.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.