Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Temporary Status for Casual Laborers: BSNL vs. Deo Kumar Rai (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 748

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a casual laborer claim temporary status under a government scheme if they haven’t met the minimum work requirement in a single year? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question, examining the eligibility criteria under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989. This case revolves around whether the respondent, a casual worker, was rightly granted temporary status despite not fulfilling the mandated 240 days of work in a calendar year.

Case Background

The respondent, Sri Deo Kumar Rai, was a casual laborer seeking temporary status under the 1989 Scheme. A committee was formed to verify the records of casual workers to determine their eligibility for temporary status. The committee found that the respondent had worked for a maximum of 38 days in a calendar year (1995), far short of the 240 days required by the scheme. The respondent claimed to have worked for longer periods, producing photocopied certificates, but the committee noted that these were not original and appeared to be issued by unauthorized persons. The BSNL authorities contended that these certificates were never issued by any officer of the BSNL.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially challenged the Committee’s decision in the High Court, which was later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s claim, agreeing with the Committee’s findings. However, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the matter back, directing the Tribunal to record evidence due to conflicting factual claims. On remand, the Tribunal, without recording any evidence, ruled in favor of the respondent, relying on the Committee’s report but misinterpreting its findings. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the authenticity of the respondent’s documents was not disputed by the Department. The BSNL then filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court. The BSNL then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Clause 5(i) of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989, which states:

“5. Temporary Status
(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year out of which they must have been engaged to work for a period of 240 days (206 days in case of offices observing five days week) such casual labourers will be designated as Temporary Mazdoor.”

This clause stipulates that a casual laborer must have worked for at least 240 days within a continuous year to be eligible for temporary status. The Supreme Court emphasized that this requirement of 240 days must be within a single calendar year.

Arguments

Appellant (BSNL) Arguments:

• The 1989 Scheme is a one-time measure, and the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria of working 240 days in 12 months.
• The Committee’s report clearly stated that the respondent had worked a maximum of 38 days in a calendar year, making him ineligible.
• The Tribunal and the High Court made incorrect factual findings without recording any evidence or considering acceptable material.
• The photocopied documents produced by the respondent do not match departmental records, and their authenticity was not verified.
• The Tribunal and the High Court misapplied the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1], by considering the service period across several years instead of one calendar year.

Respondent Arguments:

• The respondent has been litigating for a long time to secure the benefits of the 1989 Scheme.
• Both the Tribunal and the High Court have granted relief in his favor.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the respondent was eligible for temporary status under the 1989 Scheme, given that he had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] – The Supreme Court referred to this case to clarify that the ratio does not lay down a ten-year service yardstick for determining the eligibility of casual workers and that the period of engagement should be within one calendar year. The court held that the Tribunal misapplied the principles of this case.

Legal Provisions:

• Clause 5(i) of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989 – The court relied on this clause to determine the eligibility criteria for temporary status, emphasizing that the requirement of 240 days of work must be within a single calendar year.
• Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – The court noted that the Tribunal failed to follow the procedure under this provision by not recording evidence as directed by the High Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court clarified that the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1]* does not support the Tribunal’s interpretation of considering service across multiple years to compute 240 days.
• The Supreme Court relied on Clause 5(i) of the 1989 Scheme to emphasize the requirement of 240 days of work in a calendar year.

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent. The Court emphasized that the respondent had not met the eligibility criteria of working for 240 days in a calendar year as required by the 1989 Scheme. The Court noted that the Tribunal misread the Committee’s report and failed to record evidence as directed by the High Court. The High Court also made an incorrect observation that the authenticity of the documents was not disputed. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual finding of the Committee that the respondent had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year, a mandatory requirement under the 1989 Scheme. The Court also emphasized the misinterpretation of the Uma Devi (supra) judgment by the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the Tribunal did not record evidence as directed by the High Court.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following logical flow:

The Court rejected the argument that the respondent should be granted relief due to his long service, emphasizing that eligibility must be determined strictly based on the scheme’s requirements. The Court also rejected the argument that the authenticity of the documents was not disputed by the Department, noting that this was factually incorrect.

The court quoted: “The Committee as noted earlier had clearly recorded that the respondent “has completed maximum 38 days in 12 calendar months during 1.1.1995 to 31.12.1995 and as such the applicant is not entitled to grant of temporary status as per the provisions of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989.””

The court further quoted: “The above clause makes it clear that the Applicant was required to have been engaged for 240 days in a given calendar year. The Committee’s findings showed that the respondent had served for a maximum of 38 days in a calendar year and was ineligible.”

The court also quoted: “As such, the period of engagement spreading across several calendar years (and not one year as mandated under the Scheme) could not have been accepted by treating the gaps in service over those years, as ‘artificial breaks’.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that for casual laborers to be eligible for temporary status under the 1989 Scheme, they must have worked for at least 240 days within a single calendar year.
• The Court emphasized that the findings of a competent committee should be given due weight and should not be overturned without proper evidence and reasoning.
• The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, such as recording evidence when directed by a higher court.
• The Court reiterated that the principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) should not be misapplied to create a ten-year service yardstick for determining eligibility for regularization.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a casual laborer to be eligible for temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989, they must have worked for at least 240 days within a single calendar year. This judgment clarifies that the service period cannot be aggregated across multiple years and that the principles of Umadevi (supra) cannot be misapplied to create a ten-year service yardstick. This case reinforces the importance of strict adherence to the eligibility criteria specified in the scheme.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by BSNL, setting aside the orders of the Gauhati High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court held that the respondent was not eligible for temporary status under the 1989 Scheme as he had not worked for 240 days in a single calendar year. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the eligibility criteria specified in the scheme and the need for lower courts to properly consider the findings of competent committees and record evidence as directed.