(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.9661 of 2015 dated 09.07.2019.)

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9661 of 2015, dated 09.07.2019, the writ petitioners have preferred the present Writ Appeal.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners would submit that the writ petitioners joined as contract labourers in the years 1993 and 1995 at Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, External Coal Plant, Mechanical-I Sub-Division, under the contractor, namely, M/s. Chandy & Co. They were continuously engaged by the respondent-Board through the contractor without any break in service. They were also technically qualified to hold the post of Helper.

3. While so, several unions raised disputes before the competent forum seeking regular absorption of the contract labourers who had continuously worked under the respondent-Board and had completed 480 days of service. After the contract system was abolished, the writ petitioners were directly engaged by the respondent-Board and paid time-scale wages for the period from 01.05.1999 to 27.10.1999. However, subsequently, their services were orally terminated by the respondent-Board with effect from 28.10.1999.

4. On enquiry, the appellants were informed by the office of the fourth respondent that they had not completed 480 days of service as on 30.04.1999, as contemplated under B.P.(FB) No.17, dated 28.04.1999. Consequently, they were denied further employment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants submitted several representations seeking regular absorption, the last of which was dated 28.11.2006. Since the said representation was not considered, the appellants filed W.P.(MD) Nos.2361 to 2363 of 2007 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their representation dated 28.11.2006 for regular absorption. The said writ petitions were dismissed by order dated 15.03.2007. Thereafter, the writ petitioners 1 and 3 filed W.P. Nos.29821 and 29822 of 2011 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to absorb them as permanent employees of the respondent-Corporation and appoint them as Helpers in Tuticorin Thermal Power Station, in terms of B.P.(FB) No.17, dated 28.04.1999. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 02.04.2013, disposed of the said writ petitions granting liberty to the appellants to challenge the orders dated 20.08.2007.

5. Thereafter, the appellants issued a contempt notice. Pursuant to the said contempt notice, the respondents passed the orders dated 24.11.2011 and 30.09.2014. Challenging the same, the appellants filed W.P.(MD) No. 9661 of 2015 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 09.07.2019, dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that a perusal of the records would reveal that the appellants had completed 480 days of service and that the respective Superintending Engineers had certified the completion of 480 days of service. It is further submitted that, even in the impugned orders dated 24.11.2011 and 30.09.2014, the respondents had acknowledged that the appellants had completed 480 days of service. However, the Selection Committee did not accept the said claim and rejected their request for absorption.

7. The learned counsel would further submit that, in a similar case concerning one Narayanan, an industrial dispute was raised seeking conferment of permanent status. Though the benefit was initially not extended to him, he subsequently approached this Court and, pursuant to the orders passed therein, he was reinstated in service with all attendant benefits with effect from the year 1999. According to the learned counsel, the same benefit ought to have been extended to the present appellants also. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Writ Appeal.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellants have admittedly not been on the rolls of the respondent-Board from 28.10.1999 onwards. Even according to the appellants' own pleadings, their services were orally terminated with effect from 28.10.1999. The alleged oral termination was never challenged either before the Labour Court or before this Court at the relevant point of time.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further submit that, only after a lapse of several years, the appellants submitted representations seeking regular absorption and thereafter filed W.P.(MD) Nos.2361 to 2363 of 2007. The said writ petitions were dismissed by order dated 15.03.2007. Without challenging the said order, the appellants subsequently filed W.P. Nos.29821 and 29822 of 2011. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 02.04.2013, granting liberty to the appellants to challenge the earlier orders.

10. It is further submitted that the appellants have not established that they satisfied all the requirements stipulated in B.P.(FB) No.17, dated 28.04.1999, for the purpose of regular absorption. Their claim had already been rejected by the competent authority. Without challenging the order of termination dated 28.10.1999 and the subsequent orders rejecting their claim for absorption, the appellants cannot seek a direction for regular absorption after several years.

11. The learned counsel would also submit that the appellants have admittedly remained out of employment from 1999 onwards. Having allowed the matter to remain unchallenged for nearly two decades, the appellants cannot, after an extraordinary delay, seek regular absorption as a matter of right. The learned counsel therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

13. Admittedly, the appellants ceased to be in employment with effect from 28.10.1999. Though the appellants contend that their services were orally terminated on the said date, they did not challenge the alleged termination before the appropriate forum within a reasonable time. No proceedings were initiated questioning the alleged termination or seeking reinstatement at the relevant point of time.

14. It is also evident from the records that the appellants approached this Court only after several years by submitting representations seeking regular absorption. The earlier Writ Petitions filed by them were dismissed, and the orders passed therein were not effectively challenged so as to establish any subsisting right to regular absorption.

15. The claim of the appellants is primarily founded upon B.P. (FB) No.17, dated 28.04.1999. However, merely because the appellants claim to have completed 480 days of service, it cannot automatically be concluded that they are entitled to regular absorption. The eligibility for absorption has to be determined in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the relevant Board Proceedings and the applicable scheme. The competent authorities have considered the claim of the appellants and rejected the same.

16. The contention that the respective Superintending Engineers had certified that the appellants had completed 480 days of service, by itself, cannot confer an indefeasible right upon the appellants for regular absorption. Such certification, even assuming it to be correct, cannot dispense with the other requirements prescribed under the relevant Board Proceedings or confer a right to appointment contrary to the applicable norms.

17. The reliance placed by the appellants upon the case of one Narayanan is also of no assistance. The entitlement of an individual employee has to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of his or her own case and the applicable rules and proceedings. Unless the appellants establish that the factual and legal circumstances in the said case are identical to those obtaining in their case, they cannot claim parity merely on the basis of the benefit said to have been extended to another individual.

18. More importantly, the appellants have remained out of service from 28.10.1999 onwards. The alleged termination was not challenged at the appropriate point of time. The claim for regular absorption was also pursued only after a considerable delay. The appellants cannot seek to revive a stale claim for regular absorption after an inordinate lapse of time, particularly when no subsisting right to appointment or absorption has been established.

19. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the materials available on record, has rightly declined to interfere with the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. We find no error or infirmity in the order dated 09.07.2019 warranting interference by us in the present Writ Appeal.

20. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.