VITHALBHAI BABALDAS PATEL Vs. CHAIRMAN OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this group of petitions except the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1305 of 1987 who were employed temporarily for specified period or periods as contingent work-charged unskilled labourers by the On and Natural Gas Commission (Commission for short). have filed these petitions praying that the Commission be directed to desist from terminating their services on expiry of their period of employment. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1305 of 1987 was employed as contingent work-charged labourer for a specified period.

(2.) The petitioners except the petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 227 282 383 1305 and 3549 of 1987 were employed a contingent work-changed unskilled labourers for specified period of 90 days. In other words each of these petitioners was employed for a period of 90 days. So far as petitioner No 1 in Special Civil Application No. 227 of 1987 is concerned his contention is that besides his employment for a period of 90 days from November 1 198 6/01/1987 he was employed for three months by the Combination in 1981 also. Petitioner No. 2 in the said Special Civil Application No. 227 of 1987 claims that besides his employment for 90 days from November 4 198 6/02/1987 he was employed by the Commission for 26 days in 1985 and 13 days in 1986. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 383 of 1987 claims that he was employed for 90 days from 19/07/198 5/10/1985 and again from November 17 198 6/02/1987 It would therefore appear that each time he was employed for 90 days. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1305 of 1987 was last employed by the Commission for 90 days from January 7/04/1987 He however claims that prior to his last employment he was also employed for one year in 1974 60 days in 1981 and 89 days in 1986. This petitioner was employed as contingent work-charged labourer and his claim is that he was employed as a driver. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3549 of 1987 was employed for 90 days in 1984 60 days in 1985 90 days in 1986 and for 90 days from April 2 4/06/1987 However his last employment came to be terminated after completion of 38 days. It may be stated here that so far as petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1305 of 1987 is concerned it is admitted that he was employed from January 7/04/1987 The Commission however denies other allegations made by this petitioner as regards his employment in 1973-74 1981 and 1986. One thing which clearly emerges is that each of the petitioners whenever he was employed was employed for a specified period.

(3.) Petitioners contend that there are several regular vacancies in the posts in which contingent work-charged unskilled labourers and skilled labourers are appointed and therefore there was absolutely no reason or justification to employ the petitioners for specified period. It is contended that since the posts are vacant the Commission was bound to employ them on regular basis and therefore their employment for only specified period is bad in law. It is submitted that the Commission should be directed not to terminate their services on expiry of the period for which they are employed and to regularise their services. It may be mentioned here that in some of the petitions a prayer is made to quash and set aside the orders employing the petitioners for specified periods. It however appears that the reliefs which the petitioners in these petitions are seeking is that the orders of employing them are bad to the extent that period of employment is specified. In other words the petitioners do not dispute the validity of their employment but they contend that they should be treated as on regular employment ignoring the condition limiting their employment to certain period.