9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant, who appears to have been appearing in person in all his earlier cases, appeared in person before us too and argued his appeal. 2. Following a communication from the Labour Commissioner, Bangalore, the Inspector of Factories, Bangalore issued an order of appointment to the appellant on 14.10.60 appointing him tentatively as Assistant Inspector of Labour, Udipi on a temporary basis on a pay of ₹ 80 p.m. in the scale of ₹ 80-200/-. The order of appointment was in the following terms : Pending filling up of the post of Asst. Inspector of Labour, Udipi as per P.S.C. Rules, Shri Varadha Rao, B. is appointed tentatively as Assistant Inspector of Labour, Udipi on a pay of ₹ 80 p.m. in the scale of ₹ 80-200/- plus D.A. 2. His appointment is purely temporary until further orders and subject to termination without assigning any reason therefore. x x x 3. The appellant was treated as a Local-candidate and his services were regularised in the cadre of Labour Inspectors with effect from 21.10.1967 in accordance with the Regularisation Rules Ever since the regularisation, it is the admitted position, the appellant was assigned the duties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates by calling for names from the local Imployment Exchange and issuing orders of temporary appointment to the selected candidates. The appellant was one such person to be appointed to one of the three posts. According to the appellant, since he had been appointed to one of the transferred posts, after a list of names was called for from the Employment Exchange, his appointment although a temporary one, was not as a Local-candidate but one regularly made to a post in a higher category than the one assigned to him at the time of regularisation. The appellant would therefore say that these special features entitle him to claim seniority immediately below the three transferred Assistant Inspectors of Labour from Madras State and the Government and High Court of Karnataka ought to have sustained his grievance and granted him higher seniority. 6. Before we proceed to examine the contentions of the appellant we may refer to some of the relevant proceedings in the plethora of actions taken earlier by him for obtaining reliefs similar to those claimed in this appeal. As early as in 1966, i.e. even before his services were regularised, the appellant filed W.P. No. 153/66 for issue of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad filed another petition viz. W.P. No. 119/83 for a declaration that his initial appointment was to a higher post and his seniority should be reckoned on that basis. The writ petition was dismissed in limine and thereupon the appellant filed Writ Appeal No. 493/83, the dismissal of which has given rise to this appeal by special leave. 11. The appellant sought a joint hearing of R.F.A. No. 409/83 and W.A. No. 493/83 and in addition he also sought a transfer of the two appeals to another High Court on the ground that the Special Government Pleader who had appeared for the State of Mysore in W.P. No. 153/66 had since become a Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and therefore, he was apprehensive that he would not get a fair consideration of the appeals in the High Court of Karnataka. The Transfer Petitions No. 120 and 121 of 1984 were dismissed by this Court on 5.3.84. Subsequently the Writ Appeal and the Regular First Appeal were heard by the High Court and were dismissed on 7.6.84 and 24.7.84 respectively. 12. The appellant then reverted back to his attack on the dismissal of W.P. No. 153/66 and filed a Review Petition C.P. No. 400/84. That petition was dismissed on 17.9.84 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence to the scales of pay and as such the higher equation given to the allottees was confined to them alone. It was in such circumstances they were assigned higher seniority ranks in the final inter-State seniority list published in 1968 but effective from 1.11.1956. 16. The appellant's position is entirely different as may be seen from what follows. Even during 1958 i.e. well before the appellant was issued an order of temporary appointment, the posts of Assistant Inspector of Labour had been equated with the posts of Inspectors of Shops and Establishments and Investigators in the scale of ₹ 80-200 in the State of Mysore. As a result when the appellant was issued an order of temporary appointment for the post of Assistant Inspector of Labour in October 1960, his appointment was to a different category in a pay scale of ₹ 80-200. Nevertheless in order to enforce the provisions of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act and other labour lows, which were in force in erstwhile Madras area, the designation of the posts as Assistant Inspector of Labour was allowed to be continued. In such circumstances the mere continuance of the nomenclature of the post would not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. The entry in the service register of the appellant clearly recites that his appointment was Temporary (Local-Candidate) . The appellant has accepted this position and affixed his signature in the service register. When orders of transfer were issued to him he raised protest on the ground he was a Local-candidate and should not therefore be transferred. His protest, as extracted in the counter affidavit of the respondents, is in the following terms: As I still continued to be a local candidate I am of the opinion that in view of the instructions contained in the above mentioned Memorandum, I am not liable for transfer. 20. Over and above these things, the appellant has given a solemn declaration at the time of the regularisation of his services in 1967 that he was only a local candidate and that he was fully eligible for being regularised in the service under the Regularisation Rules . The declaration extracted in the counter affidavit, is in the following terms: I do hereby declare that I have not been selected by any recruitment body for any post in the service of the Government of Mysore and further I have not received any appointment in such post. Havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reading of the statements made in the two writ petitions we do not find any conflict in the stand of the Government in those petitions or any suppression of material facts in the earlier petition. The consistent stand of the Government has been that the appellant was no doubt issued an order of appointment to the post of Assistant Inspector of Labour but the post was not equitable with the posts held by the allottees from the Madras State Service. There is no admission in the later petition that the appellant was appointed to a post equivalent in all respects to the posts held by the allottees. As regards the appellant's claim that he was appointed in the Factories and Boilers wing, nothing much turns upon it because the appellant himself has stated in his affidavit that the second respondent, Labour Commissioner continued to function as the ex-officio Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and Director of National Employment Service till the Employment Exchange Department got its own full time Director during 1963-64 and the Factories and Boilers Department got its own full time Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers during 1979 . He has further stated in his affidavit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
