A. HAMSAVENI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

A                   A. HAMSAVEN! AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
                                          v.
                     STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 3, 1994

B                     [R.M. SAHA! AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]

         Constitution of India-Article 32-Scope of-Petitioners claiming to be
  helpe1! and working for long time with Electricity Board-Khalid Commission
  constituted for identifying and regula1ising service of helpers-Petitione1! did
C not appear before commissio1t-Writ Petition seeking direction either to Khalid
  Commission or to appoint any independent body to determine their iden-
  tity-Main_tainability 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 therefore, they are entitled to be
    regularised. In the year 1986 the Board passed orders prescribing quafica-
    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 filed seeking a direction eitlter 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 help.ers as intervention was permitted by the Commis·
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 bad approached this court does
not appear to be correct as the Commission in the report itself bas 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 DJ

      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:vtng 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 misconceived. The purpose of a writ petition
under Article 32 is not. a fishing or roving 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]

      R.K. 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 M.A.
    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
    & 955/92.

          A. Mariarputham and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the Tamil Nadu
    Electricity Board.
c             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           R.M. SAHA!, J. The questions that arise 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        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 pf 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
F 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
  choose to question its correctness as in 1986 there were 9,000 regular posts
G of helpers which were sought to be filled through Employment Exchange
  which did not effect them. The High Court did not find 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. HAMSAVENI v. STATE [R.M. SAHA!. J. 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 Commission 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       B
                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        c
                petition as now contended for the Board."

            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
'     submissior. 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
                                                                                       E
                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         F
                was the scope of the Commission, cannot be accepted without
                reservation."

      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 pa[ties to H
    408                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           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
B           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 obser\'ed 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
c           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 :

                "The applications are rejected. The rejection of these applica-
            tions does not mean that the rights of the applicants, if any are
F           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. In any case when the
H   Commission publicised and it became known to every helper of the State
               A HAMSAVEN! 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 B
was known to one and all in the State that the Commission was constituted
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 D
orders were passed in their favour as well.

       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 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 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,

            "However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently
            inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source
B           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 bt!en urged in this case, is
c           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."
D
    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 he put to an end with strong hand. The petitions are imaginary in
    nature without any vestige of any violation of any fundamental right.

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

    A.G.                                                     Petition dismissed.