SHRI RAM LAL vs. M/S AIR INDIA LTD

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 63/2005
% Date of Decision: July 3, 2013

SHRI RAM LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: None

versus

M/S AIR INDIA LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J.
*

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner has challenged the award dated 28.9.2004 passed by the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal (herein after referred to as „the
Tribunal‟) whereby industrial dispute raised by the petitioner for
regularizing his services with the respondent/management has been rejected.
2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the disposal of present petition are as
under:-
The case of the petitioner is that he had worked with
respondent/management i.e. Air India as Casual Loader w.e.f. September
1981 till 1985 and thereafter he was not allowed to continue in service. He
had alleged that he was called in the year 1989 by respondent/management
for joining the duty and when he contacted the Personnel Manager of the
respondent he was not allowed to join and his letter was taken away.
W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 1 of 8

Subsequently, on the directions of the Tribunal in some other case the
respondent/management had agreed to re-employ those casual workers who
had worked for a total period of not less than 240 days during their entire
span of service in Air India as on 31.12.1987 and secondly who had worked
with respondent even after 1.1.1986. Petitioner had alleged that he fulfilled
the eligibility criteria but was not allowed to resume the duty whereas the
other similarly placed casual workers, namely, Jhaman Lal and Jai Singh
had been regularized by the respondent/management whereas the claim of
the petitioner has been denied arbitrarily. It was alleged that discriminatory
attitude was adopted by the respondent/management in denying him
regularization. The petitioner approached the management for regularizing
him. However, his request was turned down. Accordingly, the petitioner
has raised an industrial dispute. The Central Government, Ministry of
Labour vide its Order No.L.11012/10/97-IR (Coal-1) dated 6.2.98 had
referred the following industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:-
“Whether Shri Ram Lal, Casual Loader was covered within the
provisions of the scheme published in the Gazette of India
dated 11.5.91 for absorption/regularization of casual employees
who was working with the management of Air India w.e.f.
19.8.80 and whether the action of the management of Air India
by not regularising the services of Sh. Ram Lal, casual loader as
per the scheme published in the Gazette of India dated 11.5.91
for regularisation of casuals is justified? If not, to what relief
that concerned workman is entitled and from what date?”

3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had filed a statement of claim setting
out his case for regularization as is referred above.
4. The respondent/management opposed the same by filing written
statement stating therein that the petitioner had worked as a Casual Loader
W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 2 of 8

with respondent/management during 1981 to 1985. Thereafter, he
abandoned the work and did not perform any work. The management
further stated that some of the casual workers filed petitions before the
Supreme Court in the year 1987 for regularization of their services. The
Hon‟ble Supreme Court directed the Central Government to refer the matter
for adjudication before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the reference was made
and the Tribunal adjudicated upon the matter and passed an award dated
4.3.1997 holding that the regularization of the worker be done in accordance
with the scheme prepared by the respondent/management. The said award
was challenged vide SLP No.3609/1992. However, the award was found to
be fair and reasonable and the scheme proposed by the management for
regularization was upheld. The stand of the respondent/management was
that the petitioner was not eligible as per the scheme prepared by the
management which was approved by the CGIT vide its award dated
4.3.1997 as such the petitioner was not considered for regular appointment
and not called for interview on account of the non-fulfilment of eligibility
criteria. It was further stated that the petitioner had filed the claim after a
lapse of 7 years and it was highly belated one. The respondent/management
further took a stand that after 1986 the petitioner never approached the Air
India and he had voluntarily abandoned the work. It was further their stand
that as per the Scheme only those casual workers who had not worked with
the respondent after 1.1.1986 were not eligible for consideration under the
scheme and as the petitioner had worked till 1985 therefore he was not
considered for regular appointment. It was denied that the Personnel
Manager had taken any document from the respondent as was alleged by
him. The respondent/management had adhered to the scheme and had
W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 3 of 8

regularized casual workers who were covered under the said Scheme and
other employees were regularised. It was alleged that Jhaman Lal and Jai
Singh were eligible as per the requirement laid down under the scheme and
as such they were regularized.
5. Replication was filed by the petitioner denying the stand of the
respondent/management and had reiterated the stand taken in the statement
of claim.
6. Thereafter, both the parties had led evidence before the Tribunal.
After closure of evidence, the arguments were heard by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal gave a finding that the petitioner never worked with the
management after 1985 as such he was not covered under the scheme
formulated by the management for regularization. The Tribunal also gave a
finding that the Scheme formulated by the management was approved by the
Tribunal. The Scheme was submitted before the Tribunal in I.D.
No.99/1987. The said Scheme was made part of the award of the Tribunal
in the aforesaid dispute vide order dated 4.3.1991. The same was published
in the Gazette of India dated 11.5.1991. The scheme was even upheld
before the Supreme Court in SLP No.3609/1992 vide order dated 30.3.1992
of the Apex Court. The Tribunal also gave a categorical finding that there is
no evidence that petitioner had worked after 1.1.1986 as such he was not
entitled for absorption/regularization. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided
that the Scheme in question was not applicable to the petitioner and he was
rightly not regularized vide impugned award and the action of the
respondent/management was justified in not regularizing him.
7. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the Scheme relied
W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 4 of 8

upon by the petitioner/management is arbitrary. It is contended that the
petitioner had gone to work with the respondent/management after 1.1.1986
but was was not given the job as such there is no fault of the petitioner and
he ought to have been regularized by the management. It is further
contended that the respondent/management had regularized the services of
two similarly placed employees, namely, Jhaman Lal and Jai Singh even
who had also not worked after 1.1.1986 like the present petitioner as such
the petitioner be also given the same treatment.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/management has contended that there is no illegality in the
impugned award and the petitioner had not worked after 1.1.1986 as such
the claim for regularization has been rightly denied. It is further contended
that the scheme for regularization referred in the impugned award has also
been approved by the Supreme Court as such petitioner is not entitled for
any relief.
10. I have considered the submissions made and gone through the
material on record.
11. The relevant scheme relied upon by the respondent/management
before the Tribunal and as stated in the counter affidavit is as under:-
“We propose to draw out a list of Petitioners who had been working
with us on a casual basis alongwith other casual in order of seniority of
number of days actually worked in descending order as per the following
criteria:-

(i) Total number of days would be calculated as on 31.12.87
since the reference was made by the Central Government for
referring the dispute to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal on 23.9.1987;

W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 5 of 8

(ii) Only such of the casual would be eligible for
employment who had actually worked for a total period of not
less than 240 days during their entire span of service of Air
India as on 31.12.1987;

(iii) Such of the casual who have not with Air India after
1.1.1986 would not be eligible for consideration under the
above scheme;

(iv) Such of the casuals against whom there are cases of
misconduct would not be eligible for consideration under the
above scheme. This is as per the order passed by the Hon‟ble
Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
th
on 5 January, 1988;

(v) The casuals would be regularized as per the corporation
recruitment procedure including the interviews, pre-
employment medical examination and verification of character
and antecedents by the Police Authorities etc. age relaxation
would be given; and

(vi) In term of the above procedure, 112 Writ Petitioners
would become eligible for regularization/absorption subject to
Air India Recruitment Procedure, over the period of next three
years in phased manner.”

12. It is admitted position that some of the casual workers of
respondent/management through its union had filed a petition in Supreme
Court for regularization of their services with respondent. The Supreme
Court had directed the Central Government to refer the dispute for
adjudication to the Tribunal and accordingly the reference was made by the
Central Government to the Tribunal. During the pendency of the dispute,
the respondent/management proposed a scheme to the Tribunal stipulating
the terms and putting conditions to regularize the casuals in a phased
W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 6 of 8

manner. The Scheme has already reproduced above. The said scheme was
approved by the Tribunal and an award dated 4.3.1991 was passed in I.D.
No.99/1987 approving the said scheme. It is also admitted position that the
said Scheme was also approved by the Apex Court also as is stated above.
It is also admitted position that petitioner raised an industrial dispute for
regularization after 7 years of passing of the award dated 4.3.1991 by the
Tribunal wherein some of the workers had raised the dispute about their
regularization. There is no explanation of delay by him. Further, as per the
scheme of management, the casual workers who had not worked with
petitioner after 1.1.1986 were not eligible for consideration under the said
scheme. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner had worked with
the management after 1.1.1986. No evidence has been led by him in this
regard though his stand is that he was called in the year 1989 for joining the
duty but his letter was taken by Personnel Manager. However, no evidence
has been led by the petitioner/management in this regard. The management
has categorically denied the same. There is no evidence that he had worked
after 1.1.1986. In these circumstances, petitioner is rightly not covered
under the aforesaid scheme for regularization.
13. Further, the stand of the petitioner that the other two employees,
namely, Jhaman Lal and Jai Singh who had not worked after 1.1.1986 like
the petitioner have been regularized. The said stand is denied by
respondent/management. The stand of the respondent is that they had
worked after 1.1.1986. The management has led evidence in this regard
before the Tribunal that they had worked after 1.1.1986. Even the
attendance sheets are also placed before this court that they had worked after
1.1.1986. However, the petitioner has not placed any material on record that
W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 7 of 8

they had not worked after 1.1.1986 to substantiate his stand. In these
circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that any discrimination
has been done by the management as is alleged.
14. In view of above discussion, there is no illegality in the impugned
award which calls for interference of this court. No perversity is also seen in
the impugned award.
The petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.



VEENA BIRBAL, J
JULY 3, 2013
kks
W.P.(C)63/2005 Page 8 of 8