Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) These two appeals are directed against a common judgment dated June 24, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in two writ applications filed by the respondents herein claiming, inter alia, issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to absorb them in permanent service
(2.) There were 15 petitions in C.O. No. 8686 (W) of 1992 and 13 petitioners in C.O. No. 9998 (W) of 1992. They filed writ applications, inter alia claiming that they although were working in a job which is perennial in nature, they were engaged for work for 89 days, whereafter their services used to be terminated for 15 to 20 days. The writ petitioners have contended that they had been working for 14 to 21 years with the appellant company. Such statements have been made in annexure 'A' to the writ application.
(3.) The writ petitioners have themselves annexed to the writ applications various documents to show that they had been employed temporarily for a period of 89 days and as soon as the said date expired, their services had been discharged. Except certain documents of their discharge from service, the writ petitioners had not annexed their appointment letters as also any other document justifying the correctness of the statements made in annexure 'A' to the writ application. The appellants on the other hand clearly stated: "(a) Writ petition is not maintainable in as much as the writ petitioners were not engaged in terms of Recruitment Rules and there were no such sanctioned posts they were engaged on no work no pay basis for required period and they have never performed any job anywhere permanently, they were engaged for a particular period after completion of such particular job within such particular period, they were discharged. The discharge was never challenged by them. There is no permanent work to be done by engaging permanent employees, the construction work requiring job are entrusted to the contractors being appointed pursuant to public tender. Instance has been given by the writ petitioners in respect of M/s. D.N. Basu Roy who was entrusted with the job at Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, the said job was entrusted on public advertisement. Different litigations have cropped up with the company with regard to settlement of claim of such contractors and the suit and other connected matter are also pending in the Hon'ble Court. (b) That the claim if any raised by the writ petitioners fall within the original side jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court, as such the instant application in appellate side is not maintainable in law. (c) That joint writ petition is also not maintainable inasmuch as the writ petitioners were engaged for a specific period to do specific job for a period of 89 days and they were engaged in different periods namely 1990, 1991, 1975, 1976, 1988, 1986, 1982, 1981, 1980 and writ petition as framed is not maintainable. (d) Writ petitioners are guilty of laches and delay and they have come before the Hon'ble Court after long delay and on delay ground above writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (e) That petitioners had no right to absorption and there were no sanctioned posts and they were not recruited according to Recruitment Rules and they were appointed on no work no pay basis for specific job, for specific time. (f) They were never engaged as nominees nor excepting one, there was any document for such nomination and nominee system has been abolished from the company since 1991 and there is no appointment in the company on nomination basis. The writ petitioners have not produced any documents that they were even nominated by father and such nomination was accepted by the company excepting one. One writ petitioner cannot be clubbed with other. Moreover such nomination has not been accepted and acted upon by the company. However the same is not subject matter of the writ petition. (g) Joint writ petition of different persons engaged in different years in respect of different jobs and discharged in different years is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. There was no perennial nature of work. There was a very temporary need for temporary quantum of job when they were engaged on temporary basis. Each petition is not equally situated. 5. (a) The recruitment of 89 days' men are made on the basis of necessity of work and discharged after covering 89 days. The work is not of perennial nature as the quantum of labour force varies on the basis of availability of work. (b) There is no rule that workers engaged on temporary basis are permanently absorbed after retirement of his father. (c) The quantum of work as assumed is not correct as it depends on availability of fund and other aspects like deposit of money by various other agencies. The contractors are engaged after necessary tender published in the newspapers and such works are not taken up departmentally. (d) The contractors' work are being carried out in CTC like any other Government organisation in West Bengal to take up works which shall not have any bearing on financial capability of the organisation. (e) The breaking up of working spell of temporary workers is not at all artificial and workers are engaged as and when required. (f) It could not have ascertained that how a person can claim to have assurance from the company for a permanent job when he is engaged on temporary basis. It is absolutely incorrect that the company gave any assurance to the temporary workers for permanent berth in the company when there are no sanctioned posts. (g) The extension of tram line does not mean extension of total service of the company as the total tram fleet is already reduced from 300 to 250. As such, the extension of tram service will not have any effect on recruitment procedure. (h) There are no funds to create posts and to provide for any of the writ petitioners. Tram Company is now run by subsidy from the Government. There are no such posts, no such funds, no such provision of recruitment, as such there is no question of absorption";