O.A.NO. 060/00362/2016. Case: Bikram Singh Vs 1. Union of India through Secretary 2. The Chief Commissioner 3. The Assistant Commissioner. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A.NO. 060/00362/2016
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Nidhi Garg, Advocate
JudgesMr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)
IssueContract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Judgement DateJanuary 13, 2017
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench)

  1. The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking benefit of treating him as direct employee (Frash) of the respondents in terms of decision in the case of Kiran Pal & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, 2003 (2) SLJ 241 (CAT) and O.A.No. 27-PKB-2011 (Rajindera Singh & Others Vs. Union of India & Others and O.A./No. 31-PB-2011 (Ravindra Nath vs. UOI etc.) decided on 4.5.2011.

  2. The applicant was appointed as Casual Labourer (Frash) in the Central Excise, Range I & 2, Mandi Gobindgarh on 2.6.2004 in 2004 and has been performing duties as such since then. He claims that though he has been termed to have been appointed through a contractor but in fact he is employee of the respondents and contractual appointment is only a camouflage to avoid regularization of applicant. He relies upon decision in the case of HSEB Vs. Suresh etc. JT 1999 (2) SC 43. Placing reliance on decisions in the case of Kiran Pal (supra) and other cases, it is claimed that in those cases it has been held that applicants were for all practical purposes employees of the Department and their subsequent employment through a contract cannot change their status of being an employee of the department and as such they were given benefit of regularization etc. and as such applicant is also entitled to similar treatment. Hence the O.A.

  3. In support of his claim that the applicant was appointed by department, reliance is placed upon letter dated 17.3.2006 (A-1) which indicates that some information has been sent showing engagement of daily wagers in which applicant is stated to have been employed as Frash w.e.f. 2.6.2004 through a contractor and is drawing wages under Office Expenses.

  4. The respondents in their reply have disputed the very veracity of letter dated 17.3.2006 and have explained that this letter was not found in their record and the applicant was never appointed by any authority, rather he was engaged by a contractor in 2004 and as such he cannot be treated as an employee of the department.

  5. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder.

  6. It is apparent that the applicant was not appointed directly by the department, rather, he was employed by a contractor to perform job in the respondent department and payment has been made to him from office expenses. He has not shown to court any record which may indicate that he was ever appointed on daily wage basis by the department and since his very engagement, he has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT