UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus VARTAK LABOUR UNION

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 04-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 509 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. · 
V. 
VARTAK LABOUR UNION 
(Civil Appeal Nos.2129-2130 of 2004) 
MARCH 4, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
A 
B 
Regularization - Border Roads Organization (BRO) -
c 
Respondent-trade union filed writ petition seeking 
regularization of casual labourers employed by BRO - High 
Court directed appellant No. 1 to regularize such casual 
workers on basis of an Office Memo, purportedly issued by 
the appellants - Direction challenged - Held: The High Court 0 
erroneously construed the said Office memo as an approved 
scheme for absorption and regularization of the casual 
workers - The said Office Memo was merely in the nature of 
an inter-department communication between the Border 
Roads Development Board headquarters and its officials -
E 
Claim for regularization of casual workers; merely because 
they had been working for BRO for a considerable period of 
time, cannot be granted - Casual employment terminates 
when the same is discontinued, and merely because a 
temporary or casual worker was engaged beyond the period 
of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed 
F 
in regular service or made permanent, if the original 
appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the 
relevant rules. 
Regularisation - Casual workers engaged by Border G 
Roads Organization (BRO) for thirty to forty years, with short 
breaks - Need for appropriate regulation/scheme - Union of 
India to consider enacting an appropriate regulation/scheme 
509 
H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A for absorption and regularization of the services of the casual 
workers engaged by BRO. 
Administrative Law - Administrative policy - Inter-
departmental communications and notings in departmental 
8 files - Held: Do not have the sanction of law and do not create 
a legally enforceable right. 
The respondent, a registered trade union comprising 
of casual workers employed by the Border Roads 
Organization (BRO), filed writ petition before the High 
• 
C Court praying for issuance of a writ, inter-alia, directing · 
appellant No.1 viz. Union of India to regularize the 
services of the members of the respondent. A Single 
Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, and 
directed appellant No.1 to regularize the services of the 
D members of the respondent who had been in service for 
more than five years. In writ appeal, the Division Bench 
of the High Court modified the order of the Single Judge 
on the basis of circular dated 25th May, 1988 issued by 
D.C' G. (P&V), for and on behalf of the Director General 
E Border Roads, New Delhi to all Chief Engineers for 
consideration of regularizat • .ln of casually paid labourers 
employed by the BRO. Aggrieved by the directions of the 
Division Bench, the appellants preferred appeal before 
this Court. This Court remanded the matter back to the 
F Division Bench. 
During the course of fresh hearing of the writ appeal 
before the Division Bench, the Central Government 
counsel on behalf of the appellants stated that pursuant 
to circular dated 25th May 1988, the appellants had 
G framed a scheme vide Office Memo No.Sectt. BRDB ID 
No. BRDB/04(90)/99-GE-11 dated 2nd February, 2001, for 
the welfare of casually paid employees. Upon perusal of 
the scheme and recording the satisfaction of the counsel 
appearing for the respondent-Union, the Court observed 
H 
• 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. VARTAK LABOUR 
511 
UNION 
that the scheme had been framed on a rational basis. 
A 
Accordingly, disposing of the writ appeal on the basis of 
the said office memo, the Division Bench directed 
appellant no.1 to regularize the services of the members 
of the respondent Union, employed by BRO, as 
postulated in Office Memo No. Sectt. BRDB ID No. BRDB/ 
B 
04(90)/99-GE-11 dated 2nd February, 2001. Review 
application filed by the appellants was dismissed. 
In the instant appeals, the question which arose for 
consideration were: 1) whether the office memo dated 
C 
2nd February, 2001 was merely in the nature of an inter-
. departmental communication between the Border Roads 
Development Board headquarters and its officials and the 
High Court erred in treating such communication as a 
final scheme for regularization of the casual labourers 
and 2) whether formulation of any scheme for D 
regularisation being a matter of policy, it is not within the 
domain of the Court to direct regularisation of temporary 
appointees de hors

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