Full Text
Translation output
/o 03.08.2011
Present: Mr. Varun Prasad for the petitioner.
Mr. B.V. Niren for respondent No. 1.
+W.P.(C) No. 3589/2007
*
\1-
Mr. B.V. Niren, Standing counsel appearing for Union of
India submits that respondent No. 1 has already taken a decision to grant one time relaxation for regularization of service of casual/daily rated/muster-roll/hand-receipt workers engaged after imposition of ban on 19.11.1985 in terms of their office memorandum dated 18.6.2009 and the case of the present petitioner for regularization shall also be considered along with other such daily-rated employees as and when the respondent receive details of such casual/daily rated employees from various regions and zones.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition the petitioner has challenge.d the impugned
Award dated 10.7.2006 whereby the Labour Court had answered the reference against the petitioner workman after placing reliance on the r'
Present: Mr. Varun Prasad for the petitioner.
Mr. B.V. Niren for respondent No. 1.
+W.P.(C) No. 3589/2007
*
\1-
Mr. B.V. Niren, Standing counsel appearing for Union of
India submits that respondent No. 1 has already taken a decision to grant one time relaxation for regularization of service of casual/daily rated/muster-roll/hand-receipt workers engaged after imposition of ban on 19.11.1985 in terms of their office memorandum dated 18.6.2009 and the case of the present petitioner for regularization shall also be considered along with other such daily-rated employees as and when the respondent receive details of such casual/daily rated employees from various regions and zones.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition the petitioner has challenge.d the impugned
Award dated 10.7.2006 whereby the Labour Court had answered the reference against the petitioner workman after placing reliance on the r'
JUDGMENT
of the Apex Court reported in Secretary vs. Uma Devi. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily rated basis on 4.12.1985 and since then he has been in uninterrupted service for the last more than 25 years.
____
! ":
! I
2011:DHC:18072
(!.6
Evidently the service of the petitioner was not regularized by respondent No.1 because of imposition of the ban on recruitment which came into effect from 19.11.1985. Now in terms of the said office memorandum dated 18th june, 2009 respondent No. 1 has taken a decision to grant one time relaxation to regularize the services of such casual/daily rated employees and as per the respondent the case of the petitioner for regularization shall also be decided in terms of the said policy within a short period after the receipt of the details of such
~---
.'-/ casual /daily rated employees from various regions and zones. With the said policy now being in place no useful purpose would be served to keep this petition unnecessarily pending before this Court. The respondent is thus directed to grant one time relaxation in the case of the petitioner in terms of the said policy at same time when respondent No. 1 decides with regard to other such employees. It is further directed that the respondent will not disengage the services of the petitioner based on the impugned Award.
With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.
,..---.
August 03, 2011 KAILA~MBHIR,j
~7 rkr
2011:DHC:18072
____
! ":
! I
2011:DHC:18072
(!.6
Evidently the service of the petitioner was not regularized by respondent No.1 because of imposition of the ban on recruitment which came into effect from 19.11.1985. Now in terms of the said office memorandum dated 18th june, 2009 respondent No. 1 has taken a decision to grant one time relaxation to regularize the services of such casual/daily rated employees and as per the respondent the case of the petitioner for regularization shall also be decided in terms of the said policy within a short period after the receipt of the details of such
~---
.'-/ casual /daily rated employees from various regions and zones. With the said policy now being in place no useful purpose would be served to keep this petition unnecessarily pending before this Court. The respondent is thus directed to grant one time relaxation in the case of the petitioner in terms of the said policy at same time when respondent No. 1 decides with regard to other such employees. It is further directed that the respondent will not disengage the services of the petitioner based on the impugned Award.
With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.
,..---.
August 03, 2011 KAILA~MBHIR,j
~7 rkr
2011:DHC:18072