Dear Readers,
Please find my view on absorption or regularization or permanence of Contract Labour/ Casual Worker or temporary worker can be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments.
There is no such provision available which had ever briefed about absorption or regularization & permanence of Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker can be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. The Constitution of India had not defined any specific tenure for any Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker to maintain as permanent.
In this regard I'm supported by the realms of verdict by Honorable Supreme Court & High Court of India which says that absorption due to regularization can't give permanence to any Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker whose services are whose services are ad hoc in nature.
By the verdict made by the honorable Supreme Court in Seceratary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi & Others it's lucid that such Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker can't be treated at par with regular employees.
We shall also refer to the other decisions made in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (AIR 1992 SC 1593) a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the High Courts had no power, like the power available to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, and merely because the Supreme Court granted certain reliefs in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, similar orders could not be issued by the High Courts. The Bench pointed out that a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law.
The temporary employees would not be entitled to rely in a writ petition they filed before the High Court upon an order of the Supreme Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularized in his service without assigning reasons and ask the High Court to pass an order of a similar nature.
There have been decisions which have taken the cue from Dharwad case and given directions for regularisation, absorption or making permanent, employees engaged or appointed without following the due process or the rules for appointment. The philosophy behind this approach is seen set out in the recent decision in Workmen v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. (1983 (4) SCC 582) though the legality or validity of such an approach has not been independently examined. But on a survey of authorities, the predominant view is seen to be that such appointments did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Court cannot direct their absorption or regularisation or re- engagement or making them permanent.
I trust these realms of verdict will secure my view that No Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker can claim being absorbed as permanent employee of any State or Industry or establishment mere on the ground of providing any specific service any particular tenure ( even if he had served for a decade).
Please find my view on absorption or regularization or permanence of Contract Labour/ Casual Worker or temporary worker can be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments.
There is no such provision available which had ever briefed about absorption or regularization & permanence of Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker can be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. The Constitution of India had not defined any specific tenure for any Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker to maintain as permanent.
In this regard I'm supported by the realms of verdict by Honorable Supreme Court & High Court of India which says that absorption due to regularization can't give permanence to any Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker whose services are whose services are ad hoc in nature.
By the verdict made by the honorable Supreme Court in Seceratary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi & Others it's lucid that such Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker can't be treated at par with regular employees.
We shall also refer to the other decisions made in State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (AIR 1992 SC 1593) a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the High Courts had no power, like the power available to the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, and merely because the Supreme Court granted certain reliefs in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, similar orders could not be issued by the High Courts. The Bench pointed out that a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law.
The temporary employees would not be entitled to rely in a writ petition they filed before the High Court upon an order of the Supreme Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularized in his service without assigning reasons and ask the High Court to pass an order of a similar nature.
There have been decisions which have taken the cue from Dharwad case and given directions for regularisation, absorption or making permanent, employees engaged or appointed without following the due process or the rules for appointment. The philosophy behind this approach is seen set out in the recent decision in Workmen v. Bhurkunda Colliery of Central Coalfields Ltd. (1983 (4) SCC 582) though the legality or validity of such an approach has not been independently examined. But on a survey of authorities, the predominant view is seen to be that such appointments did not confer any right on the appointees and that the Court cannot direct their absorption or regularisation or re- engagement or making them permanent.
I trust these realms of verdict will secure my view that No Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker can claim being absorbed as permanent employee of any State or Industry or establishment mere on the ground of providing any specific service any particular tenure ( even if he had served for a decade).
Thus my view is lucid that tenure of service provided by any Contract Labour or Casual Worker or temporary worker doesn't give any constitutional right to clam for making his or her employment permanent.
Also refer -
State of Mysore Vs. S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) S.C.R. 128].
R.N. Nanjundappa Vs T. Thimmiah & ANR. [(1972) 2 S.C.R. 799],
B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937],
B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937],
In Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.) (1992 (3) SCR 712),
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and Others [AIR 1994 SC 1638]
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma (1996 (1) SCR 972),
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma (1996 (1) SCR 972),
No comments:
Post a Comment