Bombay High Court Upholds CAT Order Granting Temporary Status to Casual Labourer Under 1993 OM — Continuous Service Since 1976 Entitles Worker to Scheme Benefits. The court held that the respondent, a casual labourer engaged in 1976, was entitled to temporary status under the Office Memorandum of 1993 due to his continuous service.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a challenge by the Union of India and customs officials against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay Bench, dated 4 September 2013. The CAT directed the petitioners to extend the benefits of the Office Memorandum of 1993 (OM) to the respondent, Sumla Shankar Chavan, a casual labourer, and to treat him as working as a casual labourer as on 1 September 1993, granting temporary status under clause 4 of the OM with consequential benefits. The respondent was engaged as a casual labourer in 1976 at the Arnala Customs Office and worked continuously for over 35 years. He made representations for temporary status in 1997, 1999, 2008, and 2009, which were forwarded by his superiors but no action was taken. The CAT found that the respondent was entitled to the benefits of the 1993 OM. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the CAT order, ruling that the respondent's long continuous service since 1976 entitled him to the scheme benefits. The court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the CAT's direction to grant temporary status and consequential benefits within three months.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Casual Labourer - Temporary Status - Office Memorandum 1993 - The respondent was engaged as a casual labourer in 1976 and worked continuously. The CAT directed the petitioners to extend benefits of the 1993 OM and grant temporary status as per clause 4. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the respondent was entitled to the scheme benefits given his long continuous service. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent, a casual labourer engaged in 1976 and continuously working, is entitled to the benefits of the Office Memorandum of 1993 granting temporary status and consequential benefits.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4 September 2013, directing the petitioners to extend the benefits of the Office Memorandum of 1993 to the respondent and grant temporary status as per clause 4 with all consequential benefits within three months.

Law Points

  • Temporary status scheme for casual labourers
  • Office Memorandum 1993
  • continuous service
  • regularization
  • casual labourer
  • Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 105

WRIT PETITION NO. 1357 OF 2014

2015-02-04

Anoop V. Mohta, N.M. Jamdar

Mr. K.R.Chaudhary with Mr. R.R. Shetty for the Petitioners, Mr. S. Ramamurthy for the Respondent

Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi 110 001; The Addl. Commissioner, Customs (Preventive Wing), 100, Everest Building, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 003; The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bassein Division, Killa Bundar, Khimji Appa Road, Vasai (West), Thane 401 201; The Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Marine & Preventive Wing, Arnala, Uttan Circle, Dist. Thane – 401 302

Sumla Shankar Chavan, Casual Labour, Office of the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Bassein Division, Vasai (West), Dist. Thane – 401 201

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of Central Administrative Tribunal directing grant of temporary status to casual labourer under Office Memorandum 1993.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (Union of India and customs officials) sought to quash the CAT order dated 4 September 2013.

Filing Reason

The petitioners challenged the CAT order that directed them to extend benefits of the 1993 OM to the respondent and grant temporary status.

Previous Decisions

Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, passed order on 4 September 2013 directing petitioners to extend benefits of 1993 OM to respondent and grant temporary status.

Issues

Whether the respondent, a casual labourer engaged in 1976 and continuously working, is entitled to the benefits of the Office Memorandum of 1993 granting temporary status and consequential benefits.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued against the CAT order; respondent argued in support of the CAT order.

Ratio Decidendi

A casual labourer who has been continuously working since 1976 is entitled to the benefits of the Office Memorandum of 1993 granting temporary status, as the scheme is intended to regularize such long-serving workers.

Judgment Excerpts

CAT has directed the Petitioners to extend the benefits of the scheme envisaged in the Office Memorandum of 1993 (OM) to the Respondent (Original Applicant) and further directed to treat him working as a casual labourer as on September 1, 1993 and grant temporary status as per clause 4 of the OM read with all the consequential benefits within three months from the date of the receipt of copy of the order.

Procedural History

The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, which passed an order on 4 September 2013 in his favor. The petitioners (Union of India and customs officials) challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 1357 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 24 December 2014 and pronounced on 4 February 2015, dismissing the petition.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds CAT Order Granting Temporary Status to Casual Labourer Under 1993 OM — Continuous Service Since 1976 Entitles Worker to Scheme Benefits. The court held that the respondent, a casual labourer engaged in 1976, was entitled t...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against Police Misconduct and Unlawful Detention — Violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of Constitution of India. Police Officers Abused and Detained Petitioner Without Authority, Court Orders Inquiry and Action.