R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Electrician by the respondent No. 3 on May 23, 1990 on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 54 per day. Petitioner further claims that he was continued to work as Electrician on the above basis till July 31, 1992, on which date his services were terminated. He has accordingly filed this writ petition for quashing the order of termination of his services for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services and absorb him in the department on regular basis and pay him the salary equivalent to the salary of regular employees.
(2.) In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions, viz., (i) the petitioner falls within the definition of workman and has completed service of 240 days and as such he is entitled to be regularised by the respondents; (ii) in any case, the petitioner has worked on daily wage basis for about two years and in pursuance of the Government Order and the law laid down by the Courts his service is liable to be regularised by the respondents, and (iii) after completion of 240 days of service his service cannot be terminated without complying with S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) A person who is appointed on daily wages on ad hoc basis does not have any right to the post and his services can be terminated at any time. He cannot claim regularisation of his services merely because he has completed 240 days in service. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, 1992-II-LLJ-452, wherein, while rejecting similar argument it was laid down as follows (p.459): "Apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularised for the reasons give above, we may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, has been leading. Although there is 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 Exchange, 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 regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. 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 Exchange 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 regularisation 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 they 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 jeopardised on both counts".;