Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Namdeo Sangale, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 02/11/2013 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which dismissed his Original Application No. 663 of 2001. The petitioner claimed that he was orally appointed as a sweeper with the respondent No. 2 Department (Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune) on 01/01/1993 and worked continuously until his oral termination on 30/08/2001. He alleged that he had completed more than 240 days of service and sought quashing of the termination order, reinstatement, and regularisation on the post of sweeper. The respondents opposed the application, denying the petitioner's employment and asserting that no appointment order was issued. The Tribunal dismissed the OA, holding that the petitioner failed to prove his continuous service and that his oral appointment did not confer any legal right. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the Tribunal's decision. The court noted that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence such as muster rolls, wage slips, or appointment letters to substantiate his claim of continuous service. The burden of proof under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lies on the workman to establish 240 days of service, which the petitioner failed to discharge. Additionally, the court observed that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, as he was not employed in any industry and his appointment was not through a valid process. The court concluded that the petitioner's oral appointment was void ab initio and did not create any right to regularisation. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Oral Appointment - Termination - The petitioner was orally appointed as a sweeper and claimed continuous service from 01/01/1993 to 30/08/2001. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application for reinstatement and regularisation. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months as required under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that his oral appointment did not confer any right to regularisation. (Paras 1-13) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25B - Continuous Service - The burden of proof lies on the workman to establish that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months. The petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence such as muster rolls or wage slips to support his claim. The court held that mere oral assertion is insufficient to prove continuous service. (Paras 8-10) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Workman - The petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was not employed in any industry and his appointment was not through a valid process. The court noted that the petitioner was not a regular employee and his services were not governed by any statutory rules. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was orally appointed as a sweeper, is entitled to reinstatement and regularisation despite not having a valid appointment order and failing to prove continuous service of 240 days under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service of 240 days
- Oral appointment does not confer right to regularisation
- Termination of oral appointee not illegal if appointment itself is void ab initio
- Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction over service matters of Central Government employees
