Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.— By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of award dated dated 7.4.1999 passed by Labour Court VI, Delhi, whereby the Tribunal answered the reference against the petitioner.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner claimed that he was working as driver with the respondent with effect from 1.9.1988 as a daily rated/casual/muster roll worker. His services were terminated despite his unblemished record on 1.7.1999, without assigning any reason. He was also not being given the same salary and rights which were being given to the regular drivers, doing identical work with the respondent and it amounted to sheer exploitation. He claimed that he was entitled for regularization and his termination was not in accordance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act since he had worked for 240 days continuously. No domestic inquiry was held against him for any misconduct. He also claimed that he remained unemployed since 1.7.1989 He claimed reinstatement with full back wages.
3. The respondent/management in this case, it seems, had not prosecuted the matter and its defence was struck off. The Labour Court observed that the petitioner was merely a casual employee who had been employed as a muster roll worker. The petitioner failed to show any provision by which he, became entitled for regularization. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar, 1997 IV AD SC 196, Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner.
4. I consider that the Trial Court rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner's disengagement did not entitle him for reinstatement as well as regularization, which was claimed by the petitioner.
5. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Supreme Court observed that the State is equally controlled by economic considerations. The financial implications of any public employment, the viability of the department or of the instrumentality or of the project is also of equal concern for the State. The Courts cannot impose on the State a financial burden of this nature by insisting on regularization or permanence in employment of those who are employed temporarily and are not needed permanently or regularly. The burden may become so heavy by such directions that the undertaking itself may collapse under its own weight. The rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution. Unless an appointment is in terms of the relevant rules of recruitment after a proper competition amongst qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If an appointment is a contractual appointment, it comes to an end at the end of the project. If it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. A temporary employee cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his terms of appointment. Merely because a temporary employee or casual worker is continued for a time beyond the terms of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in above case, I consider that the writ petition of the petitioner has no force and is liable to be dismissed. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition of the petitioner. No orders as to cost.
Writ Petition dismissed.