Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress Agra & Others v. Union Of India & Another - WRIT - C No. 4954 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 19928 (23 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioners have assailed the order dated 8th May 2002 passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi declining to refer the alleged dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court.

It emerges from record that the petitioners had worked as seasonal Anti Malaria Lascar (casual workers) at Air Force Station, Agra between 1991-2000.  They were engaged from time to time during rainy seasons, i.e. from 1st June to 30th November each year. Their period of engagement has been indicated in the writ petition as well as in paragraph 2 of the of the judgment dated 28th May, 2001 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allababad Bench, Allahabad, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is further borne out from the record that after their dis-engagement from service, they had approached the Central Adiministrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by filing Original Application No. 225 of 2001- Vikram Singh and 6 others V. Air Orricer, Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan New Delhi and others seeking relief to the effect that the respondents be directed to provide continuous engagement to the applicants on the post of Anti Malaria Lascar as per their scheme and they may be restrained from calling fresh candidates from the Employment Exchange.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placing implicit reliance upon the decisions in Ram Avtar Sharma and others V. State of Haryana and others-19853 SCC-189 and Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another Vs. State of Bihar and others- 1989 (3) SCC-271 contended that the case of the petitioners ought to have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.      

I have given my thoughtful considerations to the aforementioned decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. A bare perusal of the aforesaid decisions makes it crystal clear that they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as such, they are distinguishable.  In the case on hand, the petitioners have already approached quashi-judicial authority, i.e., Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding of fact that the petitioners were overage, as such, they have no legal right for engagement as Anti Malaria Luscar.

  The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short ''the Tribunal') has adjudicated upon the matter and passed judgment and order dated 28th May, 2001.  The relevant portions of the judgment and order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by the Tribunal for the purposes of decision in the controversy involved in the instant writ petition, are quoted below :-

"1. Sri Vikram Singh and 7 others have come up through this OA under Section 19 of the A.T.Act, 1985 seeking relief to the effect that the respondents be directed to give continuous engagement to the applicants as seasonal Anti Malaria Lascar as per their scheme and also no to call the fresh candidates from the Employment Exchange to be engaged as Seasonal Anti Malaria Lascar.


3. The respondents have contested the case filed counter affidavit and have pleaded that the cases of the applicants were duly scrutinized in the light of applicable rules but they have not found eligible because of their having become overage even after grant of permissible relaxation in this regard.


5. It would in the fitness of the circumstances that first the eligibility of the applicant is considered and if they are found within zone of eligibility then only the other factors are to be examined.  The respondents have a definite pleading that the individual cases of the applicants were examined and they could not be given fresh engagement because of age bar which has been prescribed to be 18 years to 25 years.


8. Keeping in view the submission as above there cannot be any doubt that there is provision providing the age limit for Seasonal Anti Malaria Luscar through SRO and the cases of the applicants have been duly scrutinized by the competent authority and, therefore, their claim for recruitment and to provide the temporary status and regularization has been refused, whereas the applicant no. 4 Shri Siya Ram has mentioned to be within the zone of consideration and no scope remains for judicial review on this count.

9. Once the applicants are beyond the zone of consideration for having become overage they are out of race to raise any other objection. The case of Siya Ram be dealt as per provisions and pleadings by the respondents and be considered notwithstanding that he has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

10. For the above, the relief sought for cannot be granted. The OA is dismissed accordingly in respect of applicants no. 1 to 6.The case of Shri Siya Ram applicant no. 7 be considered in light of above observations. No order as to costs."

A perusal of the judgment and order of the Tribunal reveals that the case of the petitioners was duly scrutinized by the competent authority of Indian Air Force and the petitioners were found to have crossed the upper age limit, i.e. 25 years and accordingly they were not found within the zone of eligibility for their engagement as Seasonal Anti Malaria Luscar at the concerned Air Force Station.

Due to the above infirmity, the petitioners were not re-engaged, as such, they cannot claim their engagement as a matter of legal right. The record further reveals that the petitioners were engaged from time to time at the Air Force Station, Agra as per exigency of service in carrying out anti-malaria drive/removal of mosquitoes as has been averred in the various paragraphs of the counter affidavit having been filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Union of India.

The Labour Ministry, Government of India after considering the decision rendered by the Tribunal, has declined to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for further adjudication.  Since the petitioners were found over-age and they were out of zone of eligibility, they were not entitled for re-engagement.  On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, the petitioners cannot force the authorities to provide them employment as they have no legal right since they were merely casual workers engaged for certain period in a year that too, admittedly for about 150 days (not even for 240 days in a colander year).  This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to establish that the Indian Air Force is an ''industry' within the meaning of provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act.  Applying the ratio laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and others- 1978 (2) SCC-213 and catena of recent decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for interference in the writ jurisdiction.

In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit.  

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 23.11.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.