# Tufail Ahmad and others v. The Chairman/Director, Gas Authority of India and another

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 526
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-04-25
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tufail-ahmad-and-others-v-the-chairman-director-gas-authority-of-india-and-40958
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Regularisation-petitioners
working
on
different
status
with
registered
contractor-which provides services to
the Gas Authority of India-who under
takes work of HUAC System, Split and
window Air conditioning water cooler
etc.-never worked as employee of GAILheld-'No' mandamus can be issued to
private contractor.

Held: Para 17 & 18

The petitioners are not the employees of
Gas Authority of India, as such, have not
worked as employees of GAIL for more
than 240 days continuously.

So far as regularization of their service is
concerned the petitioners are permanent
employees
of
Contractor
Company,
hence, no writ of mandamus can be
issued to a private Contractor and even
otherwise, in view of decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of Punjab and
another V. Sardara Singh 1998 (9) SCC709 holding that relief of regularization
in service cannot be granted by High
Court
in
exercise
of
extraordinary
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution,
Case law discussed:
1999 (3) J.T.-277
1998 (9) SCC-709

## Text

526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
payment and not that of the petitioner. If
at all, recovery could have been made
from to officer concerned and not from
the person who assisted such officer. In its
order, the appellate authority has also
observed that the petitioner was having 38
years of service career with unblemished
record and still awarded such punishment
of reversion and recovery, without the
petitioner being found responsible for
such acts, which is wholly unjustified and
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the
order impugned orders in this writ petition
deserve to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition
stands allowed. The impugned orders
24.5.2002 and 23.10.2002 passed by the
District Magistrate, Agra, respondent no.1
and Commissioner, Agra Division Agra,
respondent
no.2
are
quashed.
The
petitioner
shall
be
entitled
to
all
consequential benefits. No order as to
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46474

Tufail Ahmad and others ...Petitioners
Versus
The Chairman/Director, Gas Authority of
India and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma
Sri Rajeev Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siddharth Singh
Sri D.P. Singh
Sri K.N. Pandey

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Regularisation-petitioners
working
on
different
status
with
registered
contractor-which provides services to
the Gas Authority of India-who under
takes work of HUAC System, Split and
window Air conditioning water cooler
etc.-never worked as employee of GAILheld-'No' mandamus can be issued to
private contractor.

Held: Para 17 & 18

The petitioners are not the employees of
Gas Authority of India, as such, have not
worked as employees of GAIL for more
than 240 days continuously.

So far as regularization of their service is
concerned the petitioners are permanent
employees
of
Contractor
Company,
hence, no writ of mandamus can be
issued to a private Contractor and even
otherwise, in view of decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of Punjab and
another V. Sardara Singh 1998 (9) SCC709 holding that relief of regularization
in service cannot be granted by High
Court
in
exercise
of
extraordinary
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution,
Case law discussed:
1999 (3) J.T.-277
1998 (9) SCC-709

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsels for the parties and
perused the record.

2. The petitioners are permanent
employees of Advance Air Conditioning
Works (Pvt.) Ltd., Kanur (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Contractor Company'),
a
company
registered
under
the
Companies
Act,
1956
which
has
undertaken work of maintenance of
2 All] Tufail Ahmad and others V. The Chairman/Director, GAIL and another
527
HVAC system, split and window Air
Conditioning, Water Coller Machines and
Refrigerators
at
GAIL
Compressor
Station, Dibiyapur.

3. By the impugned orders, Gas
Authority of India Ltd., (hereinafter
referred to as 'the GAIL') a Government
of India undertaking has informed the
petitioners that since they are permanent
employees of Contractor, their services
cannot be regularized by GAIL in their
establishment.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned
orders, the petitioners have invoked writ
jurisdiction by means of this writ petition.
Apart from other prayers, the petitioners
have also prayed for a direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to regularize their services in
GAIL.

5. The Contractor Company was
also
registered
under
EPF
and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Kanpur (for short 'RPFC') having PF
Code Number UP 20803. The Company
also deposits PF contributions with RPFC
Kanpur in respect of employees working
with them as per the copies of challan
submitted by the Company from time to
time.

6. GAIL is a Government of India
undertaking engaged in the work of
maintenance of storage, distribution and
production as well as system relating with
gases etc., including maintenance of
HVAC system, Split and window Air
Conditioning, Water Coller Machines and
Refrigerators. From the contract between
the Contractor Company and GAIL, it
appears that as and when any Air
Conditioner, Water Cooler, Machine,
Split/window Air Conditioner and HVAC
system gets out of order or any problem is
detected, GAIL informs the Company
which,
in
turn,
deputes
its
own
employees,
i.e.,
the
petitioners
for
repair/rectification of defects. The said
work, including change of parts etc., is
taken up by the Contractor Company at is
establishment either at Dibiyapur or
Kanpur and after rectification of the
defects, the Company installs/fixes these
items at Compressor Station, Dibiyapur.
The said repairing or maintenance work
of
Air
Conditioning,
Water
Coller
Machines, Split Air Conditioning etc., is
being done with complete supervision of
the Company at its establishment.

7.

Establishment
of
GAIL
Compressor
Station,
Dibiyapur
is
prohibited place under Official Secrets
Act, 1923. Therefore, no one can enter the
establishment without having a proper
entry pass which is issued to anyone
including visitors.

8. The petitioners have by means of
this
writ
petition
sought
relief
of
regularization of their services/absorption
in GAIL (Diyiyapur) Etawah on the
ground that they have completed more
than 240 days in a calander year. The
details of their duties as claimed by them
in paragraph 6 of the writ petition are as
under :-
sl.
no.
Name Appointment
Tenure/
nature
of
work
1.
Tufail Ahmad 11.6.92
7.7.99
Supervisor
(2615 days)
2.
Rakesh Pal 11.6.92
6.7.99
Technician
(2615 days)
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
3.
Mahesh Kumar 17.9.92
Operator
(2465 days)
4.
Manish 1.5.92
Operator
(2615 days)

9. The stand of the workmen is that
in view of their continuous need, it is
proved factum that their services are
perennial and permanent in nature, the
vacancies are always existing in the
respondent-establishment but instead of
appointing the petitioners as permanent
employees in
GAIL, the work of
maintenance of Air Conditioning and
Cooling systems was being taken by it
through contract labour system which is
wholly illegal and unjust.

10. In support of their claim, the
petitioners have placed reliance upon gate
passes issued to them for entry/exit in the
establishment which is a prohibited area
under the Official Secret Act. They have
also filed work order dated 29.6.99 to
establish that the contract Agency which
has deployed the petitioners under the
said work order is a contractor assigned
the duties to carry out the work order
entrusted to it under the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

11. It is submitted by the counsel for
the petitioners that for getting the work of
perennial nature in the establishment done
through the Contractor establishes the
mala fide intention of the respondents to
avoid regularization/absorption by GAIL
in their establishment as well as the law
laid down in Secretary Haryana State
Electricity Board V. Suresh and others -
1999(3) Judgement Today- 277.

12. Moreover, the work awarded to
Company by GAIL was for maintenance
of
HVAC,
widow
and
split
airconditioning, water cooler machines,
refrigerators of GAIL Compressor Station
and
not
work
of
the
respondentundertaking. If any problem arose, that
was communicated to the Company
which used to depute its employees for
rectification of the defects which were
being made under the supervision of the
Company hence the relationship of
'master and servant' existed between the
petitioners and the Company and not
between GAIL and the petitioners. In the
case of Haryana State Electricity Board,
work of 42 Safai Karmacharis supplied by
the contractor was directly supervised by
Haryana State Electricity Board.

13. The defects in the Air
Conditioning and Cooling systems do not
occur every day. Therefore, the said work
is entirely of a non-perennial nature and
the petitioners are on the rolls of the
Company. Therefore, the relationship of
employer-employee exists between the
petitioners and the Company.

14. The ratio laid down in Secretary
Haryana State Electricity Board (supra)
does not apply to the case of the
petitioners
because
Haryana
State
Electricity Board was not registered at the
relevant time under the Contract Labour
(R&A) Act, 1970 but GAIL Compressor
Station
had
been
registered
under
Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 with
Registering
Officer
and
ALC
(C),
Ministry of Labour Government of India,
Kanpur. In the case of Haryana State
Electricity Board, the contractor Mr.
Kashmir Singh had not obtained any
licence under Contract Labour (R&A)
Act, 1970 for engagement of 42 Safai
Karmacharis awarded to him by the
Haryana State Electricity Board whereas
the work performed by the petitioners was
2 All] Tufail Ahmad and others V. The Chairman/Director, GAIL and another
529
of perennial nature. Further that was a
'prohibited category' of work under
Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970
whereas in the present case, the contract
awarded to the Company by GAIL, it was
never stipulated in the tender document
for supply of any specific number of
workers.

15. The contract between Haryana
State Electricity Board and contractor Mr.
Kashmir Singh was a camouflaged one,
but in so far as the contract entered into
between
GAIL
and
the
Contractor
Company is concerned it is to be
presumed to be genuine. The Contractor
Company as well as respondent-GAIL are
registered under the Companies Act, 1856
-a camouflage by the competant labour
Court. The petitioners are on the rolls of
the Contractor Company. The nature of
work was non-perennial one and does not
appear to be on the basis of averments
made by the petitioners in various records
appended with the writ petition. The
relationship of employer-employee is only
between Contractor Company and the
petitioners and not between GAIL and the
petitioners. The GAIL may be principal
employer for the purpose of provisions of
Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition
Act
but
admittedly,
petitioners
are
permanent
employees
of
Contractor,
namely, Advanced Air Condition Works
(Pvt.) Ltd., Kanpur. Their attendance etc.,
is not maintained by GAIL. Their
Provident Fund etc., are deducted by the
Contractor Company. The contract labour
system has not been abolished in the
respondent-undertaking, hence it cannot
be said that awarding specialized cooling
work to the Contractor Company is
illegal, mala fide or unjust.

16. The entry of the petitioners in
GAIL is restricted to a particular area
where they are deputed in the Air
Conditioning/Cooling system. Permanent
appointment in GAIL can be made
according to the recruitment rules. The
petitioners being permanent employees of
another Company i.e. The Contractor
Company they cannot be directed to be
regularized/absorbed in the respondentGovernment undertaking as they have
never worked on its rolls as its employees.

17. The petitioners are not the
employees of Gas Authority of India, as
such, have not worked as employees of
GAIL
for
more
than
240
days
continuously.

18. So far as regularization of their
service is concerned the petitioners are
permanent
employees
of
Contractor
Company, hence, no writ of mandamus
can be issued to a private Contractor and
even otherwise, in view of decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab
and another V. Sardara Singh 1998 (9)
SCC-709
holding
that
relief
of
regularization
in
service
cannot
be
granted by High Court in exercise of
extraordinary powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution,

19. For all the reasons stated above,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned orders. The writ petition fails
and is accordingly dismissed. No order as
to costs.
---------
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47151 of 2004

M/s
Super
Cassettes
Industries
Limitted

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sankatha Rai
Sri Ayub Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.B. Yadav
Sri Pradeep Kumar
S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holding
Act,
1960-Section-11
(1)-
whether the appeal against the order
pass u/s 11 (1) by Prescribed Authority
maintainable?
Held-'No'-under
this
section either the tenure holder or the
state accept the case of each otherlikewise consent decree.

Held: Para 11

No appeal against orders under Section
11(1) of the Act is maintainable for the
reason that under the said sub-section,
no adjudication takes place. Under the
said sub-section, orders are passed on
admission. Just as under Section 96,
C.P.C., no appeal is maintainable against
decree passed by the Court with the
consent of parties, similarly, against
orders passed under Section 11(1) of the
Ceiling Act, no appeal is maintainable.
Under
the
said
sub-section,
either
tenure-holder accepts the case of the
State or State accepts the case of the
tenure-holder without any contest or
adjudication.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain learned
senior counsel assisted by Sri Ayyub
Khan learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned standing counsel for original
respondents State of U.P and Additional
Commissioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar which
has been impleaded through order dated
4.4.2007 passed on its impleadment
application.

2. Prescribed authority under U.P
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960/ Additional Collector (F & R)
Gautam Budh Nagar in case No. 5 of
2002 under section 9(2) of the Act State
Vs. Super Cassettes Industries Limited
passed an order on 17.12.2003 cancelling
the notice dated 24.1.2002 under section
9(2) of the Act. Against the said order
State filed appeal before Commissioner
being Appeal No. 3 of 2003-04. In the
appeal petitioner who is respondent
therein raised an objection that appeal was
not
maintainable.
Additional
Commissioner (Administration), Meerut
Division Meerut through order dated
29.10.2004 rejected the objection and
held the appeal to be maintainable. This
writ petition is directed against the said
order of the appellate court.

Provision of appeal is provided under
section 13 (1) of the Act, which is quoted
below:

"Any party aggrieved by an order
under sub-section (2) of section 11 or
section 12, may, within thirty days of the
date of the order, prefer an appeal to the
[Commissioner] within whose jurisdiction
the land or any part thereof is situate."