Management Under Obligation To Give Reasoned Order While Considering Regularization Of Services: Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata

Brief Facts:

The Workman was employed as a Casual Mazdoor under the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India since May 20, 1996. Following the formation of BSNL in 2000, he was instructed to continue his employment with BSNL, where he remained as a Casual Mazdoor. The Workman's grievance stemmed from the alleged arbitrary exclusion from the consideration for temporary status and regularization, a benefit that was reportedly extended to some of his junior counterparts. Despite prior legal action, wherein he sought the conferment of Temporary Mazdoor status and subsequent regularization, the Workman asserted that his representations were not duly considered in line with the directives of the tribunal. He further contended discriminatory treatment, bias, and illegality in the rejection of his case.

Thereafter, the Workman filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata (“Tribunal”). The Tribunal directed the Management to reconsider the Workman's case. However, the Management denied him the benefits of regularization. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman filed a fresh original application before the Tribunal.

The Management argued that the Workman was not appointed as a Casual Mazdoor through the local Employment Exchange, which was the customary procedure at the time of his alleged employment. Furthermore, a circular dated February 12, 1999, imposed a ban on the engagement of Casual labourers, a policy that was purportedly maintained by BSNL upon its inception. The Management contested the Workman's assertion regarding the preferential treatment of other Casual Laborers, claiming that no Casual labourer was granted Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) in the BSNL regime according to available records. They emphasized the transition of employees from the Department of Telecommunications to BSNL, indicating that the employment conditions and procedures were subject to legacy processes.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that the Workman was not considered for regularization because as per the Management, he was not appointed as a 'Casual Mazdoor' through local employment and had also not completed continuous work of 8 hours or more than 240 days in a calendar year.

However, the Tribunal observed that the Workman was working with the department till the hearing of his case. Further, from the records, it was evident that the Workman was employed in the department since 20.05.1996.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the Workman worked for a long time with the department as a casual labour. The Tribunal noted that in the earlier rounds of litigation, the Management was directed to reconsider the case of the Workman in light of the principles established by the Supreme Court. However, the Management failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Management summarily rejected the case of the Workman for regularization without going into the merits and grounds raised in the earlier original application filed by the Workman before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Management was quashed and set aside.

The Management was directed to reconsider the claim of the Workman for regularization and pass detailed reasoned and speaking order after giving a chance of hearing to the Workman.

Case Title: Karu Mehra vs Union of India and Others

Case No.: O.A. No. 350/337/2022

Advocate of the Applicant: Mr N. Roy

Advocate of the Respondents: Mr T.K. Chatterjee, Mr R. Mukherjee, and Ms S. Bhaduri

Click Here To Read/Download Order