- (1.) BY means of this writ peti­tion the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the award dated 2-4-2003, Annexure-1 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioners are alleged to have been working from 1996-97 on daily wages in respondent's organisation. The petitioners al­lege that they are working regularly and are being paid daily wage salary. As they are working from a long period as such the peti­tioners approached the authorities for regularisation. When nothing was done, then petitioners approached the State Government raising a dispute on an application filed by them. A reference was made to the Industrial Court and the Labour Court without consid­ering the fact that petitioners are working from 1996 and nature of work of the petitioners is permanent and various posts in the respondent's organisation are still vacant, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for regularisation. But the Labour Court without considering the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners has rejected the claim by its order dated 2-4-2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award rejecting the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court. As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, the matter is being decided finally with the consent of the parties. Sri S. N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a chart to this ef­fect was submitted regarding continuous working of the petitioners from 1996 and 1997 onwards. Further reliance has been placed upon a statement of the official of the respondent Sri Lalta Prasad Tripathi who was working as shift in-charge in Allahabad Jal Sansthan. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the aforesaid state­ment, it is clear that petitioners are continu­ously working and names of the petitioners are enrolled in the muster roll and they are being paid salary month to month. It has also been stated by the said witness that they have been working from 6 to 7 years on the date when the statement was made on 10-9-2002. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as there are various vacancies and the petitioners are working continuously but are being treated as daily wagers and there is admission by the respondent to this effect that they are work­ing continuously, as such the Labour Court has erred in law in ignoring this aspect of the matter and rejected the claim of the petition­ers. Reliance has been placed upon a judg­ment of the Apex Court reported in 2006 (108) FLR 826 : (2006 AIR SCW 452). The Work­man, Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. v. The Management, Bhurkunda Colliery and reliance has been placed upon paras 12, 13 and 14 of the afore­said judgment which are quoted below: "12. In the matter of regularization, the main concern of the Court is to see that the rule of law is respected and to ensure that the executive acts fairly and give a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of In­dia. The State being a model employer should not exploit the employees nor take advantage of helplessness and misery of either the un­employed person or the person concerned, as the case may be. 13. Where a temporary or ad hoc appoint­ment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is regular need for his ser­vices on a regular post and accordingly con­siders regularization. 14. It is also our bounden duty to give ex­pression to the legislative intention for creat­ing a healthy environment leading to proper understanding and co-operation and in true sense a partnership between the employers and the employees in cases of industrial dis­putes."
(3.) IN such a situation learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the nature of ap­pointment of petitioners are daily wager and as and when there is requirement, petitioners are called and according to that a salary to that effect is being paid. It has further been submitted that the nature of work is not per­manent but it is casual, therefore, their claim cannot be considered for regularisation. It has further been submitted on behalf of respon­dents that petitioners have failed to prove that the nature of appointment of the petitioners are permanent and on sanctioned posts. If a person has not worked continuously 240 days in one calendar year, he cannot claim regularisation. Further submission has been made on behalf of the respondents that the witness produced on behalf of the respondent clearly states that the nature of appointment of the petitioners are daily wager and as and when the work is required, the petitioners are called and the nature of work is not perma­nent and salary to petitioners are being paid from the acquaintance roll. Therefore, Labour Court considered all these aspects of the mat­ter and rejected the claim of the petitioners.;