Telangana High Court
WP/28160/2005 of S.Eswar Reddy, Vs The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, on 26 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 28160 of 2005 Order: The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he worked as Casual Mazdoor in the respondent-BSNL for the period from 01.02.1986 to 01.03.1989, from May 1991 to February 1992 for a period of 270 days, and from
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAW.P. No. 28160 of 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is thathe worked as Casual Mazdoor in the respondent-BSNL for the periodfrom 01.02.1986 to 01.03.1989, from May 1991 to February 1992 for aperiod of 270 days, and from 12.07.2001 to 31.10.2003, but therespondent-BSNL, without issuing any notice and without following theprocedure contemplated under the Statute, orally directed him not toattend the work from 01.11.2003, and in spite of submitting severalrepresentations requesting the respondent-BSNL to re-engage him asCasual Mazdoor, they have not considered the same. Hence, he filedthe present writ petition seeking to direct the respondent-BSNL toconsider his case for re-engagement as Casual Mazdoor.
A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-BSNL denying theallegations of the petitioner that he worked as Casual Mazdoor from01.02.1986 to 01.03.1989 and from 01.05.1991 to 28.02.1992 for aperiod of 270 days, and inter alia stating that the petitioner was earlierengaged as casual labour for the period from 01.05.2002 to31.07.2003 (except April, May and June 2003) for the works ofcontingent nature including repairs, which restricted to 100 days in ayear, and he was paid wages on pro-rata basis for that period. It isfurther stated that in view of the ban imposed on the engagement ofcasual labour by the Department, the request of the petitioner to re-engage him as Casual Labour cannot be considered.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-BSNL.
Though the petitioner claims that he worked as Casual Mazdoorin the respondent-BSNL for the period from 01.02.1986 to 01.03.1989,from May 1991 to February 1992 for a period of 270 days, and from12.07.2001 to 31.10.2003, the same is denied by the respondent-BSNL stating that the petitioner was engaged as casual labour for theperiod from 01.05.2002 to 31.07.2003 (except April, May and June2003) for the works of contingent nature including repairs, whichrestricted to 100 days in a year. Since the petitioner has already beendis-engaged from service, no direction can be given to therespondents re-engage him into service.
Be that as it may, whether the petitioner had worked as CasualMazdoor in the respondent-BSNL continuously for a period of 270days or not, whether there is any relationship of employer andemployee between the respondent-BSNL, and whether there is anyban on engagement of casual, are all disputed questions of fact, whichcannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, for they require adducing of evidence by theparties, and the remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to approach theappropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and seekappropriate reliefs.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner,however, is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum under theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, for appropriate reliefs. No costs.
Date: 26[th] December, 2007.KSR
_________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.