Bahal Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
Date of Decision:
!! "#$#%& '( Bahal Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
!! "#)*#%& '( Harbans Lal and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
!! "#$+#%& '( Gurmukh Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
!! "#*$#%& '( Shinder Pal and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents )
!! "#*,#%& '( Tehal Singh and another .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents $
!! "#**)#%& '( Bachan Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents ,
!! "#*+#%& '( Balkesh Raj and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
+
!! "#$**#%& '( Ramji Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents *
!! "#,$#%& '( Khurshid Alam and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
!! "#,$$#%& '( Jagjit Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
!! "#,$,#%& '( Gurdeep Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
!! "#,$+#%& '( Atma Singh and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
!! "#,$*#%& '( Ram Narain and others .....Appellants versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI, JUDGE Present :
Mr. G.S.Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dilshad Singh Gill, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA Nos.62352023 & 63852023.
None for the appellants in LPA Nos. 99552023, 93652023, 93752023, 169952023, 45952023 and 129852023.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate, for the appellants in LPA Nos. 762, 766, 767, 768 & 769 of 2024. Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.
****
--./ -& "( CM No. 1630-LPA-2023 in LPA No. 623 of 2023 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 23 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Main Appeals 2.
Consideration in the present set of appeals is to the judgment dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby 22 writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners (appellants herein) were dismissed and the relief claimed for regularization of the daily wagers/temporary workers/workcharged employees from the date of their initial engagement in the absence of any Act, Rules, policy or instructions was rejected by the learned Single Judge. 3.
Learned Single Judge in a considered manner repelled the argument raised by the writ petitioners to the effect an award dated 23.09.1987 (Annexure P-2) had been passed by the Labour Court for regularization of 39 similarly situated persons and therefore, the writ petitioners were also entitled for the same relief. It is pertinent to mention that the said award was upheld by this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3228 of 1988 (Annexure P-3) and certain directions had been issued for enforcement of the said award vide order dated 22.01.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4817 of 1988 (Annexure P-4).
4.
Learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal came to the conclusion that the law had been laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, where it is held that it is not appropriate for the Courts to issue directions to regularize the services of the daily wagers/temporary workers/work charged employees. It was noticed that the policy for
regularizing the services of the employees is a one time measure which would only give a ground to the State Government if the employees have completed 10 years of service.
5.
It is not disputed in the present case that the writ petitioners were appointed during the years 1984 to 1989 and they were regularized on different dates ranging from the years 1992 to 2004. It is apparent that the regularization orders thus were never a subject matter of challenge and neither the same have been placed on record by the appellants-writ petitioners and they were satisfied by the said regularization. Only on account of the fact that 39 persons had got an award in their favour in 1987 which was upheld in 2010, the matter as such was raked up in the year 2011 for the first time whereas others followed suit belatedly till 2015.
In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge distinguished the factum of the regularization granted by the Labour Court by rejecting the argument raised on the plea of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the doctrine of 'equality' and it was held that where a benefit was granted illegally or irregularly, the same could not be applied dehors the Acts, Rules, Regulations or policies. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. M.V.Sarkar 2010(2) 2 SCC 59.
6.
We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge did not make any error in any manner while coming to the said conclusion. It is settled principle that in order to get the benefit as such of a writ of mandamus, the writ petitioners had to rely upon a policy, rules, regulations or statutes in order that the writ Court could issue a mandamus. In the absence of any such legal right, the learned Single Judge was well justified in rejecting the case. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, as noticed above in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), while considering this aspect had held that
only if a statute imposes upon a legal duty on the authority and the party has a legal right under the statute or rule, a mandamus could be issued and in the absence of the same it cannot be issued. Reliance can be placed on relevant paragraph 52 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
! "
# $ # % &
$ '() $
#
*+,-./ #&,001(
2
(#
(
3
3 + /4 7.
A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court consisting of three Judges in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others 2008(10) SCC 1, noticed that creation and abolition of posts is a matter of Government policy and the Courts cannot take upon themselves the power of creation of a post. The appointments being on temporary basis for a fixed period and absorption of all as regular employees in the absence of any legal right as such was accordingly frowned upon. It was further held that inspite of observations made to this effect by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, various
Single Judges and Benches of the High Court were not following the verdict. Relevant paragraph-70 of the judgment reads as under:- "56 7
"
"
(
8 $9#
$ (
"
3 "
"
" "
"
7
: #
(
3
3
#
#
( "
"
% "
# #
!
+ 4 Rather it was held in the above judgment cited (supra) that the observations made by the two Judges Bench in
should be read as obiter and the same should neither be treated as binding by the High Courts, Tribunal and other judicial foras nor they should be relied upon or made basis for bypassing the principle of '"# $% & "# $' ().
8.
The argument which has now been raised that it is a matter of equality as such on the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is also not liable to be accepted. The writ petitioners had to specifically plead and prove to that effect that the persons who were the beneficiaries of the award were identically situated or were juniors and despite that they were granted the benefits. In the absence of any specific pleadings and not even referring to the dates of their appointments, we are of the considered opinion that the claim on the ground of parity invoking the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India also would not give us the jurisdiction as such to go into the said aspect.
Thus having not made out a case as such, on the basis of which a writ of mandamus could be issued, we are of the considered opinion that merely because certain set of persons got an award in their favour, which was also in peculiar manner to the extent that the workmen were seeking the status of work5 charge employees on account of the fact that similarly situated persons had been granted the benefit.
*
Court had granted the benefit and therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly distinguished the said award while rejecting the argument.
9. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which would warrant our interference. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (LAPITA BANERJI) ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No