Service Law – Regularisation of services of the casual paid labourers – Claim for – Respondent Nos.1 & 2-Trade Unions filed writ petition against the appellant-Union of India claiming a relief for regularisation of the casual workers, who were working in a project undertaken by Border Roads Organisation (BRO) for construction of roads – Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition – Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Single Judge and issued further a writ of mandamus by directing the appellant to frame a scheme to provide specific facilities to the workers enumerated in the directions – On appeal, held: High Court did not examine the case in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2) – High Court failed to see that it was not the function of the courts to frame any scheme but it is sole prerogative of the Government to do it – Appellant has now framed a welfare scheme for all such casual workers – Therefore, impugned order of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2) and then examining the facts of the case at hand, this Court finds that the facts of the case at hand and the one which were subject matter in the case of Union of India are identical in all respects except that name of the Trade Union of workers and place of working in both the cases are different, which is hardly of any significance. The High Court should have, therefore, examined the case in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India rather than to evolve its own separate scheme. The High Court failed to see that it is not the function of the Courts to frame any Scheme but it is the sole prerogative of the Government to do it. [Paras 14, 15 and 16] [450-F-H]
2. All that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can do is to direct the Government to consider for framing an appropriate Scheme having regard to the facts and circumstances of any case which this Court did in the case of Union of India but not beyond it. It is only in an exceptional case where the Court considers it proper to issue appropriate mandatory directions it may do so but not otherwise. [Para 17] [451-A-B]
3. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Union of India has now framed a welfare scheme for all such casual workers. The salient features of the welfare scheme and the benefits which are being extended to all such casual workers are set out in Para 14
(i) to (xii) of the petition. [Para 18] [451-B-C] Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union (2) (2011) 4 SCC 200 : [2011] 4 SCR 509 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.