SHYAM BABU Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.11830/2010 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.11829/2010 (Delay) For the reasons stated in the Application the delay of 78 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned. Application is allowed. Review Petition No. 275/2010 The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 14th January, 2010 passed by this Court with the directions to the Respondent to make payment of `.1 lakh to the Petitioner as compensation in lieu of reinstatement within six weeks failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Petitioner was working as Beldar (Daily Wager) with Respondent sometime since October, 1982 and on 12th March, 1984 he made an Application to the Respondents seeking regularization and a regular pay scale. While the matter was still pending before the Conciliation Officer, his services were terminated with effect from 1st August, 1984. The Petitioner made an Application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 alleging that his services were illegally terminated and a reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal with respect to his claim of regularization and termination from service. Though the Respondent claimed abandonment of service, however no reference was made on this issue. The two issues before the Industrial Tribunal were of regularization and illegal termination of service of the Petitioner. The Industrial Tribunal awarded in favour of the Petitioner and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. On a challenge by the Respondent, the learned Single Judge, set aside the two awards following the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and held that the regularization cannot be directed if the initial entry itself is not against any sanctioned vacancy.

(2.) Impugning the order dated 5th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge the Petitioner filed the Appeal wherein this Court held that the Industrial Tribunal was correct in holding that the services of the Petitioner has been illegally and unjustifiably terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. With regard to the other relief it was held that the Petitioner was a daily wager who had worked for less than two years and even if it was concluded that the services were illegally terminated on 1st August, 1984, the Petitioner has no right to retain the post being a daily wager. This Appeal was heard at length on 13th and 14th January, 2010. On 14th January, 2010 learned counsel for the Petitioner made a statement not pressing his claim for regularization in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & others (supra), in our view rightly so as the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court clearly enunciates that a daily wager has no right to be regularized if the recruitment is bypassing the constitutional scheme of public employment. This Court thus granted compensation of `. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement to the Petitioner.

(3.) By way of this Review Petition the Petitioner seeks to contend that the Petitioner should have been regularized and the action of the Respondent is violative of Article 14 and 16. It is contended that the Petitioner never intended to give up his claim of regularization and the counsel authorized by the Petitioner has wrongly submitted this fact before the Court. It is further stated that no copy of the policy change had been placed by the Respondent and in any case the compensation of ` 1 lakh is on the lower side and the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages.