Summary
The Court set aside orders granting temporary status to a casual worker who had not established the required engagement within a single twelve-month period under the 1989 telecommunications scheme. The tribunals misread a verification report finding at most thirty-eight days in a year and wrongly aggregated engagement over several years. They also failed to record evidence as directed on remand, despite disputed photocopied certificates. Umadevi did not authorise that method of computing eligibility. BSNL’s appeals were allowed and the orders granting relief quashed.
Issues
- Whether scattered engagement over several years could satisfy the scheme’s annual service requirement.
- Whether relief could rest on a misread verification report and disputed certificates without the evidence directed on remand.
Provisions considered
- Clause 5(i), Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989Temporary status required continuous service of at least one year with the stipulated days of engagement within that period, not aggregation across several calendar years. (¶¶ 16, 20-22)
Held
- Eligibility had to be established under the scheme. Its requirement of engagement for 240 days in the relevant annual period could not be met by adding work spread over 1989 to 1998 and simply describing intervening gaps as artificial breaks. (¶¶ 16, 20-22)
- The verification committee found a maximum of thirty-eight days in twelve calendar months and found that the worker had not established authentic original supporting records. The tribunal reached the opposite result by misreading that report, without an evidentiary foundation or compliance with the remand direction to record evidence. (¶ 16-19)
- Umadevi concerned the distinct subject of irregular appointments and one-time regularisation. It did not create a ten-year aggregation yardstick for eligibility of casual workers under this scheme. (¶ 21-22)
- The tribunal’s order granting relief and the High Court’s writ and review judgments were set aside and quashed, with no costs. No further evidentiary remand was ordered. (¶ 23-24)
Result
BSNL’s appeals allowed without costs; tribunal and High Court orders granting temporary-status relief set aside and quashed.