TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (2) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ularisation of any workman. 2. To understand the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the facts with regard to the employment of the petitioners as brought on record by the respondents. 3. During the 5th Five Year Plan, the Central Government had formulated various schemes to provide wage- employment to agricultural and landless labourers during lean periods. One such scheme was "Food for work". Under this scheme, employment was given to the poorer sections of the population in the rural areas partly for food and partly for cash payment. During the 6th Five Year Plan, the objective of the programme was enlarged to include alleviation of rural poverty by distribution of income in favour of the poor and the needy population in the rural areas by providing employment opportunities to them. With this view, a new programme called the National Rural Employment Programme was started in October 1980 replacing the "Food for work" programme. During the period of the same Plan, another scheme called "Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme" was launched on August 15, 1983 with the same objective of generating additional employment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tricts were identified for the purpose and the new scheme was named as "Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna". The Government of the India then decided to merge Rural Employment Programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme as well as the Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna into one rural employment programme to be known as "Jawahar Rozgar Yojna". Under this programme, the assistance received from the Central Government as well as the State Governments/Union Territories was required to be given to the village panchayats to increase the coverage of the programme and to ensure fuller participation of the people in its implementation. 6. In view of the transfer of the responsibility to implement the programme to village panchayats from the DRDA, the latter ceased to be the machinery for employing either the Supervisors or the unskilled labourers and for choosing the works to be implemented and for distributing the funds, since the funds were thereafter placed by the Central Government directly in the hands of the village panchayats. The DRDA thus ceased to be the implementing machinery w.e.f. July 31, 1989. 7. The Union Territory of Delhi has 191 panchayats. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gency" registered as a Society under registration No. 4940 dated 8-2-1971. As per the by-laws of the Society, the Development Commissioner of Delhi Administration was nominated as Chairman of the Society. Ever since then the Society continued to function as such with the Governing body of the Society taking major policy decisions and with the Project Officer acting as Chief Executive to run the affairs of the Society. In May 1976, the name of the Society was changed to "Small Farmers Development Agency". The changed name was duly communicated to the Registrar of firms and Societies. The name underwent yet another change in 1981 and the Society was given the present name - the "District Rural Development Agency". This change was also duly communicated to the Registrar of Firms and Societies. All these changes are borne out by the minutes of the meetings of the Governing body of the Society. It was also sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the DRDA continues to be the employing agency because the tenure of the Pradhans of the village panchayats in the Delhi region has expired and at present the administration of the Panchayats is carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly wages working in the Soil Conservation Department, Agricultural Section, Delhi Administration. They were working in the said Department for nearly 20 years as causal labourers. On these facts, this Court had directed the Delhi Administration to prepare a scheme for absorbing the casual labourers who had worked for one or more years in the Soil Conservation Department, as regular employees with in six months from the date of the order and to absorb all such casual labourers who were found fit to be regularised under the scheme to be so prepared. The Court had also directed that until they were so absorbed, the Delhi Administration should pay w.e.f. 1.10.1988 to each of the said casual labourers working in the Soil Conservation Department the salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular employee in the comparable post in the said Department. In Writ Petition Nos. 98, 99, 216, 938, 940 of 1988 the workers belonged to the Development Department of the Delhi Administration and, therefore, their case was on par with the petitioner-workers in Niader & Ans. v. Delhi Administration & Anr. in W.P. Nos. 9609-10 of 1983 decided on 29th September, 1988. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Writ Petition Nos. 98, 99, 216, 938, 940 of 1988 was made on March 6, 1990 and the order in Writ Petition No. 818 of 1989 was made on March 12, 1990. The Subsequent order in Review Petition No. 562 of 1990 was passed on 31st October, 1990 whereas the orders in contempt petition arising out of Writ Petition No. 818 of 1989 were passed, as stated above, on 8th August, 1991 and 13th September, 1991. We may also mention here that the decision dated March 10, 1988 in Writ Petition No. 1351 of 1987 (R.K. Soni & Ors., v. Delhi Administration) on which the petitioners have placed reliance related to workers employed in the departments of the Delhi Administration and they were working in the said departments for more than 4 to 5 years. In that case this Court had directed the absorption of the workers on regular basis. They were first to be absorbed against Group `D' posts and as and when promotion opportunities arose they were to be considered for promotion in Group `C' posts. Similarly, it appears that SLP No. 7660 of 1989 [Delhi Administration v. Yoginder Singh & Ors.] is directed against the order of the Labour Court in LCA Nos. 78-90 of 1986 and 153-55 of 1986 in which the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble,were also given the employment under the scheme. Even that responsibility of the implementation of the Yojna was transferred by the Central Government from the DRDA to the panchayats directly who, as stated above, were the only agencies which could choose the works to be carried out as well as the work-force to be employed for the works. The finance was also directly given to the panchayats for the purpose. The only task that was entrusted to the DRDA was to monitor the working of the scheme by the panchayats. In the circumstances, by the very nature of things neither the DRDA nor the panchayats could be asked either to ensure work to the petitioners every day or to regularise them. There was no scope for regularisation since there were no sanctioned posts or the sanctioned strength of workers. 11. It further appears from the annexures to the written submissions filed by the petitioners and the respondent-Union of India that the Central Government decided to discontinue even the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna in the Union Territory of Delhi w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and the Development Commissioner-cum-Chairman, DRDA has been asked by the Government under their letter dated 26.11.1991 addressed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The object was not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural poor- much less to the unemployed in general. As has been pointed out by the Union of India in their additional affidavit, in 1987-88, 33 per cent of the total rural population was below the poverty line. This meant about 35 million families. To eliminate poverty and to generate full employment 2500-3000 million mandays of work in a year, was necessary. As against that, the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna could provide only 870 million mandays of employment on intermittent basis in neighborhood projects. Within the available resources of ₹ 2600 crores, in all 3.10 million people alone could be provided with permanent employment, if they were to be provided work for 273 days in a year on minimum wages. However, under the scheme meant for providing work for only 80-90 days work could be provided to 9.30 million people. The above figures show that if the resources used for the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna were in their entirety to be used for providing full employment throughout the year, they would have given employment only to a small percentage of the population in need of income, the remaining vast majority being left w....