UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus MOHAN PAL ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 29-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
MOHAN PAL ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 29, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Casual labourers-Temporary status-Grant of 
1993 scheme of the department of Personnel and Training of the 
Government of India-Clause 4-lnterpretation of-Under clause 4 temporary 
status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on 
A 
B 
c 
the date of commencement of the schem.,_F urther the scheme is not an ongoing 
scheme and casual labourers are not entitled to temporary status when they D 
complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices observing 
5 days a week). 
Clause 7-Dispensing with the services of casual labourers acquiring 
temporary status by employers as if they were regular casual labourers-
Whether permissible-Held, since object of 1993 scheme is to regularise all E 
causal workers, their services can be dispensed with for misconduct or violation 
of service rules and cannot be on whims and fancies of the employer. 
The question that arose for consideration is whether the conferment 
of temporary status is a one time programme as per the Scheme formulated 
by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India F 
or is an ongoing Scheme to be followed by the Department; whether the 
casual labourers are to be given 'temporary' status as and when they 
complete 240 days of work in a year (206 days for the offices observing 5 
days a week) and whether the services of casual labourers who had been 
given 'temporary' status could be dispensed with as per clause 7 as if they G 
were regular casual labourers. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. Under clause 4 of the Scheme formulated by the 
Department of Personnel and Traininfof the Government of India the H 
613 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A conferment of 'temporary' status is to be given to the casual labourers who 
were in employment as on the date of commencement of Scheme and have 
also rendered a continuous service of at least one year which means that 
he should have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days in a year or 
206 days in case of offices observing 5 days a week. Clause 4 of the Scheme 
B does not envisage that this is an ongoing Scheme and as and when casual 
labourers complete 240 days of work in a year or 206 days (in case of offices. 
observing 5 days a week), they are entitled to get 'temporary status. Clause 
4 of the Scheme does not appear to be a general guideline to be applied 
for the purpose of giving 'temporary' status to all the casual workers. It is 
up to the Union Government to formulate any scheme as and when it is 
C found necessary that the causal labourers are to be given 'temporary' status 
and later they are to be absorbed in Group 'D' posts. However those who 
have already been given 'temporary' status on the assumption that it is an 
ongoing Scheme shall not be stripped of the 'temporary' status. 
D 
(617-E-G; 619-DI 
2. By conferment of 'temporary' status, the casual labourers acquire 
certain rights. Clause 7 of the Scheme makes it clear that despite the 
conferment of 'temporary' status, the services ofa casual labourer may 
be dispensed with by giving one month notice in writing. This clause would 
certainly give the employer the right to terminate the services of casual 
E labourers who have been given 'temporary' status. Having regard to the 
general scheme of 1993, the casual labourers who acquire 'temporary' 
status cannot be removed merely on the whims and fancies of the employer. 
[fthere is sufficient work and other casual labourers are still to be employed 
by the employer for carrying out the work, the casual labourers who have 
acquired 'temporary' status shall not be removed from service as per clause 
F 7 of the Scheme. If there is serious misconduct or violation of service rules, 
it would be open to the employer to dispense with the services of a casual 
labourer who had acquired the 'temporary' status. 1618-A, C, E-G) 
T Rajakili and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc., W.P. (C.T,) 
G No. 86/99 decided by the Calcutta High Court, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3168 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1999 of the Delhi High Court 
H in C. W. No. 963 of 1998. 
.... 
.. 
U.0.1. v. MOHAN PAL [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 
615 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 3182, 3179, 3176-78, 3169, 3181/2002 and 3170-71, 3172-
73, 3174-75 and 3180 of 2002. 
Mukul Rohta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.