2015 (6) TMI 258 - HC - Indian Laws

Termination of service - Held that - Government of India under the office memorandum dated 23.11.2005 desired to curtail unwarranted expenses and further emphasised not to regularise casual labourers, but that cannot be a reason to terminate the original applicants from service who are working on casual basis only and not claiming for regularisation of their service. The continuance of such employees shall in no case put any extra economic burden upon the employer. The persons who shall be employed through service providers shall also be entitled for same remuneration and the service provider too shall claim its commission, therefore, that will in no manner satisfy desire of the petitioner respondent to curtail expenses. On the other hand, removal of the respondent original applicants who are in service of the petitioners from several years shall be quite arbitrary as they will be thrown out of employment without any wrong on their part. The position would have been different if the petitioner would have been going to have regular recruitment against the posts occupied by the original applicants but that is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner want to remove the original applicants from service just to have labour through contractor with a view to reduce expenditure but that object, as already stated, cannot be served as the applicants too are working on casual basis only. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the direction to not remove casual laborers from service.
2. Interpretation of office memorandum dated 23rd November, 2005.
3. Application of Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules.
4. Consideration of economic burden on the employer.
5. Justification for retaining casual laborers.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the Department of Income Tax employed casual laborers in various positions. The laborers approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking protection from removal and regularization of their services. The Tribunal restrained the Department from removing them, leading to the Department's appeal through writ petitions.

2. The Department argued that a government office memorandum from 2005 emphasized cost-saving measures and prohibited regularizing casual workers. Additionally, they cited Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules, allowing outsourcing for efficiency. They contended that the Tribunal erred in directing the retention of casual laborers based on these regulations and a High Court judgment.

3. The laborers, on the other hand, clarified that they did not seek regularization but only sought to continue their employment. The Court acknowledged the government's cost-saving intentions but noted that retaining the existing laborers wouldn't impose additional economic burdens. The Court highlighted that outsourcing services under Rule 178 didn't necessitate terminating the current casual laborers.

4. The Court emphasized that the laborers had been working for several years and removing them without cause would be unjust. The Department's motive to reduce expenses by substituting laborers through a contractor wouldn't be fulfilled as the replacement laborers would incur similar costs. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's direction to retain the laborers was appropriate.

5. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal's decision to prevent the removal of casual laborers. The Court clarified that the direction applied only to laborers employed on a casual basis at the time of the original applications' disposal, without imposing any costs on either party.