Vijayalatha W/o Rajesh B and Niramalatha W/o Sudhakar D and N. Arunakashi W/o Jayakumar V. The Union of India through the Secretary Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance and The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise (Karnataka Circle)

WP/41757/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a group of petitioners, all contingent casual laborers employed under various divisions of the Central Excise in Mangalore, who challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal's decision, dated 04.06.2019, denied their claims for regularization in service. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to regularization, citing their long-term employment. However, the respondents, including the Union of India and the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, contested this, highlighting that the petitioners did not fulfill the necessary criteria for regularization, particularly the requirement of 10 years of service. The High Court of Karnataka, referencing a similar case and the principles established in the case of Uma Devi, dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801101 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WP.No.41752/2019, W.P.No.3270/2020
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B PRAMOD
• Assessee Lawyers: N G PHADKE
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Regularization; Writ petition; Contingent Casual Labour

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39208-DB WP No. 41757 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 41757 OF 2019 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. VIJAYALATHA W/O RAJESH B AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS CONTINGENT CASUAL LABOUR O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOTH DIVISION MANGALORE-575 008. 2. NIRAMALATHA W/O SUDHAKAR D AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WORKING AS CONTINGENT CASUAL LABOUR O/O BELGAUM COMMISSIONER MANGALORE AUDIT CIRCLE MANGALORE-575 001. 3. N. ARUNAKASHI W/O JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS CONTINGENT CASUAL LABOUR O/O ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SOUTH DIVISION MANGALORE-575 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.G PHADKE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39208-DB WP No. 41757 of 2019 AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (KARNATAKA CIRCLE) C R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.06.2019 IN O.A.NO.170/1453-55/2018 TO NO.170/1455/2018 PASSED BY THE HONB’LE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AT BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXUE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly by drawing our attention to an order dated 03.08.2021 passed in a batch of writ petitions the lead one being WP.No.41752/2019 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39208-DB WP No. 41757 of 2019 challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) states that, this Court had not interfered with the order of the Tribunal. 2. For parity of reasons, we follow the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.08.2021, in the aforementioned Writ Petition more specifically Paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which reads as under: “8. It is true that the Income Tax Department has also framed a scheme of regulariztion, which is also on record and the fact remains that the petitioner was not fulfilling the terms and conditions for regularization as at the relevant point of time she has not put in 10 years of service as required under the executive instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, dated 11.12.2006 and the policy framed by the department thereafter. 9. Another important aspect of the case is that after the year 2005, the petitioner has not worked as an employee of the department serving as a daily wager. On the contrary, she has been an employee of a contractor, who is supplying manpower of his choice to the department. Hence, she is an employee of the contractor and this Court, while deciding an identical matter i.e., W.P.No.3270/2020 filed by the Union of India in the case of an identically placed employee, which was also arising out of the similar judgment dated 4.6.2019, has held that the Tribunal has erred in law and in facts in directing the Union of India to continue the employee therein. There cannot be a direction to the contractor to supply the same employee again and again, who has worked with the department earlier. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39208-DB WP No. 41757 of 2019 case of the petitioner was not covered under the policy issued by the department at the relevant point of time and by the judgment delivered in the case of Uma Devi (supra), this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in the light of the fact that from 2005 onwards the department has not engaged any casual Labour and the casual labourers are being supplied by the contractor, for which NITs are issued from time to time. 11. Resultantly, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, admission is declined. 12. In the light of the order passed in W.P.No.41752/2019, admission is declined in the connected writ petitions also.” 3. For the aforementioned, the petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 "