A  

B  

A. HAMSA VEN! AND ORS. ETC. ETC.  v.  

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.  

AUGUST 3, 1994  

[R.M. SAHA! AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]  

Constitution of India-Anicle 3~Scope of-Petitioners claiming to be  helpers and working for long time with Electricity Board-Khalid Commission  constituted for identifying and regularising service of helpers-f'etitioners did  

C not appear before commission-Writ Petition seeking direction either to Khalid  Commission or to appoint any independe11t body to determine their iden- tity-Maintainability of Writ Petiton--Absence of material to establish that  they were employees of Board or satisfy nomts laid down by commission--Ef- fect of  

D The petitioners have approached this court as individuals claiming  that they have been working as contract labourers and performing the task  of helpers with Electricity Board and tlterefore, they are entitled to be  regularised. In the year 1986 the Board passed orders prescribing qualica- tions for various posts including the post of helpers which were challenged  

E by some of the Unions. Parties agreed for appointment of Mr. Justice  Khalid as one man Commission to examine and recommend the criteria  for absorbing and regularising the services of helpers. Intervention was  permitted by the Commission, of even, those who were not parties in the  writ petition or special leave petition. The petitioners did not approach the  Commission. Writ Petitions have been Ried seeking a direction eit:ier to  

F the Khalid Commission or to appoint any Independent body to determine  their identity.  

Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court  

HELD : 1.1. Sleeping over the rights, if there were any, with eyes open  G does not cure laches. In any case when the Commission publicised and it  

became known to every helper of the State that the Commission has been  constituted for specific purpose of identifying and regularising service of  helpers then nothing prevented the petitioners from approaching the Com•  mission if they were helpers as intervention was permitted by the Commls·  

H sion, of evea, those who were not parties in the writ petition or special leave  404

AHAMSAVENI v. STATEOFT.N. 405  

petition. It was incumbent on the petitioners to have approached the Com- A  mission by way of individual applications even if they were not sponsored by  the Union: The claim of the petitioners that since the commission was  concerned only with those petitioners who had approached this court does  not appear to be correct as the Commission in the report itself has men- tioned that even others who had intervened and whose claim was found to B  be justified were permitted to intervene and were impleaded and the orders  were passed in their favour as well. [ 408-H, 409·A to D)  

1.2. A perusal of the Khalid Commission Report would indicate that  the Commission had observed that the rule by which certain qualifications  were prescribed for helpers in 1986 was not justified as it would have C  resulted in throwing out those who were working for long time. After  obsei;ving that the qualification laid down by the Board would not stand  in the way of those workers who were working since long it proceeded to  lay down the method to identify such workers and the norms on which they  could be regularised. Despite these guidelines laid down by the Commis· D  sion the petitioners have not made any effort by placing any material which  could establish that they were helpers who were working as such for long  time even prior to 1986. [ 409-E, Fl  

1.3. The claim that petitioners are not seeking any relief except a  direction either to Khalid Commission or to appoint any independent body E  to determine their identity is miscoiiceived. The purpose of a writ petition  under Article 32 is not a fishing or royjng enquiry. The petition can succeed  only if the petitioners make out a case of violation of any fundamental  right. But what is claimed is a chance to establish their claim. In the  absence of any material to show that the petitioners were employees of the F  Board or that they satisfied even the norms laid down by the Commission  which could entitle them to claim that they were similarly situated, the  petitioners are not entitled to any relief. [ 409·G·H]  

' RK Panda & Ors. v. Steel Authority of India & Ors., J.T. (1994) 4 SC  151, relied on. G  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 97 of  1992 etc. etc.  

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) H

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.  

A S. Siva Sabramanium, V. Mayakrishnan, H. Subramaniam and MA.  Krishnamoorthy for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 97/92  

A.B. Rohtagi and Ambrish Kumar, for the Petitioner in W.P. No.  955/92.  

B R.K. Jain, and P.R. Seetharaman for the Respondent in W.P. No. 97  

c  

& 955/92.  

A. Mariarputham and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the Tamil Nadu  Electricity Board.  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

R.M. SAHAI, J. The questions that ai:ise for consideration in these  petitions, filed by approximately 1200 persons claiming to be helpers and  working for long time with Electricity Board are whether these petitions  

D can be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution and a direction be  issued to opposite parties to regularise their services and absorb them in  the post of helpers in keeping with the guidelines and the criteria laid down  by Justice Khalid Commission in pursuance of an order passed by this  Court.  

E  

F  

The petitioners are not members of any Union. They have ap- proached this Court as individuals and claim that they have been working  as contract labourers and performing the task of helpers, therefore, they  are entitled to be regularised and paid the salary which is paid to a regular  employee as the meagre amount that is being paid to them by their  contractors is so low that it results in exploitation and is consequently  violative of constitutional guarantee under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the  Constitution. It is alleged that in the year 1986 the Board passed orders  prescribing qualifications for various posts including the post of helpers  which was challenged by some of the unions but the petitioners did not  

G choose to question its correctness as in 1986 there were 9,000 regular posts  of helpers which were sought to be filled through Employment Exchange  which did not effect them. The High Court did not fmd any merit in the  petitions filed by the unions challenging the rule prescribing minimum  qualification, consequently, those petitioners approached this Court by way  of special leave petition in which parties agreed for appointment of Mr.  

H Justice Khalid as one man Commission to examine and recommend the

A. HAMSA VEN! v. STA TE [R.M. SAHA!, J.) 407  

criteria for absorbing and regularising the services of helpers. After sub- A  mission of the report the Board approached this Court for clarification that  the Commissio.1 report was confined to only those persons who were  parties to the writ petition. These applications were decided on 30th April  1991 and following order was passed :  

''The Court's order dated 10th April, 1991 is clear enough to  indicate that the report of Mr. Justice Khalid, former Judge of this  Court is binding between the parties. The report deals with the  workmen who were parties to the writ petition as well as other  workmen similarly situated. It cannot be said that the order of this  Court confined only to the workmen who were parties to the writ  petition as now contended for the Board."  

B  

c  

Till now the petitioners were not on scene. Since the Court had  observed that its earlier order by which the Commission was constituted  applied to other similarly situated five trade unions workers of Tamil Nadu  Electricity Board who had not got impleaded before the Commission till D  submissim, of the report intervened for impleadment. Their application  was rejected by the Commission on 20th July 1991. The Commision ob- served,  

"it cannot be that the interveners did not know that two new parties  had got themselves impleaded before the Commission. It is impos- sible to accept the case that the iterveners were in the dark about  the scope of the Commission and about the day-to- day proceed- ings before the Commission. That such a large number of alleged  workmen with strong unions with political backing would have  been unaware of what took place before the Commission and what  was the scope of the Commission, cannot be accepted without  reservation."  

E  

F  

The Commission in the same order explained the misapprehension of the  Unions about the order passed by this Court in April 1991 and observed G  as under :  

"The argument fails to take note of the circumstances under which  the above observations were made by the Supreme Court. In the  

objection petition filed by the Board, the contention was that the  Commission could deal with only workmen who were parties to H

408  

A  

B  

c  

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.  

the "Writ Petition". This means that the Board wanted the benefits  

of the report to be extended only to the first petitioner before the  

Commission. It was in this context that the Supreme Court ob- served that the report dealt with workmen who were parties to the  Writ Petition as well as the other workmen similarly situated. The  

pointed reference here was in answer to the objections filed by the  

Board regarding the two other petitioners before the Commission  

and it was in this context that the Superme Court obserYed that  

its order could not be understood to be confined only to the  

workmen who moved it by the writ petition. This observation,  

therefore cannot be extended to secure benefits to all the workmen  who were not before the Commission till the report was submitted.  

There was no agreement before me that the intervener Unions  consisted of workmen similarly situated."  

After rejecting the application the Commission proceeded to identify the  D helpers in the manner provided in its report and issued letters for holding  

interview on 23rd August 1991. Now some of the petitioners who till now  were nowhere claim to have addressed individual letters requesting the  Board to absorb them. It was in fact creating ground for further action as  the petitioners having sent letters in August approached this Court by way  

E of I.As. in the original S.L.P.(Civil) No. 1820 of 1990 by which the Com- mission was constituted which were rejected on 23rd September 1991 by  the order extracted below :  

F  

"The applications are rejected. The rejection of these applica- tions does not mean that the rights of the applicants, if any are  prejudiced. However, we make it clear that these petitioners are  not covered by our previous orders in these cases."  

Taking advantage of the observation in the order that the dismissal of the  applications was without prejudice to their rights, if any, the petitioners  

G filed these petitions.  

Facts are self demonstrative. No reliance can be placed on the  averment that they did not approach earlier as they were not affected. Even  if it be so they are to thank themselves. Sleeping over the rights, if there  were any, with eyes open does not cure !aches. Jn any case when the  

H Commission publicised and it became known to every helper of the State

A HAMSAVENI v. STATE [R.M. SAHA!, J.] 409  

the Commission had been constituted for specific purpose of identifying A  and regularising service of helpers then what prevented the petitioners  from approaching the Commission if they too were helpers as claimed by  them as intervention was permitted by the Commission, of even, those who  were not parties in the writ petition or special leave petition. We agree with  the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the observations  made by Khalid Commission that the proceedings were held openly and it  was known to one and all in the State that the Commission was constituted  

B  

for purpose of deciding the criteria for appointment of helpers in the  service of the Board and their service conditions and the norms on which  those who were working should be regularised it was incumbent on the  petitioners to have approached the Commission by way of individual C  applications even if they were not sponsored by the Union. The claim of  the petitioners that since the Commission was concerned only with those  petitioners who had approached this Court by way of special leave petition,  does not appear to be correct as the Commission in the report itself has  mentioned that even others who had intervened and whose claim was found  to be justified were permitted to intervence and were impleaded and the  orders were passed in their favour as well.  

D  

Apart from this a perusal of the Khalid Commission Report would  indicate that the Commission had observed that the rule by which certain  qualifications were prescribed for helpers in 1986 was not justified as it E  would have resulted in throwing out those who were working for long time.  After determining ·ihat the qualification laid down by the Board would not  stand in the way of those workers who were working since long it  proceeded to lay down the method to identify such workers and the norms  on which they could be regularised. Despite these guidelines laid down by  the Commission the petitioners have not made any effort by placing any F  material which could establish that they were helpers who were working as  such for long time even prior to 1986. The claim that they are not seeking  any relief except a direction either to the Khalid Commission or to appoint  any independent body to determine their identity is misconceived. The  purpose of a writ petition under Article 32 is not a fishing or roving G  enquiry. The petition can succeed only if the petitioners make out a case  of violation of any fundamental right. But what is claimed is a chance to  eastablish their claim. In absence of any material to show that the  petitioners were employees of the Board or they satisfied even the norms  laid down by the Commission which could entitle them to claim that they  were similarly situated the petitioners are not entitled to any·relief. In R.K H

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.  

A Panda & Ors. v. Steel Authority of India & Ors., JT [1994] 4 SC 151 a bench  of this Court of which one of us (Hon'ble N.P. Singh, J.) was a member,  observed,  

B  

c  

D  

'However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently  inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source  of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a  right to regularisation in the employment of the principal employer.  Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the  principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement  and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere  camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged in this case, is  a question of fact and has to be established by the contract  labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible  for High Court or this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or  jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such question, only on the  basis of the affidavits."  

There is no whisper in the petitions if there was any contract entered  between the petitioners and their employers. Further the petitioners who  had an opportunity to appear before the Commission but did not avail of  it cannot be permitted to approach this Court after an observation was  made by this Court in different context and try to get the proceedings  

E reopened. Such speculative and stale litigation is harmful to the society and  should be put to an end with strong hand. The petitions are imaginary in  nature without any vestige of any violation of any fundamental right.  

F  

In the result, all these petitions fail and are dismissed. We are  refraining from imposing exemplary costs as the petitioners are workers  who appear to have been victims of improper guidance.  

A.G. Petition dismissed.