HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT Vs. RAJINDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the management') challenges the award dated 8th August, 2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 138/2005 directing the management to treat the respondent no.1 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') as its regular employee from 1987-88 when, as per the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal, other employees who were admittedly junior to the workman had been regularized.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the workman was employed with the management in the year 1985 as a mali/beldar on daily wages basis. After a couple of years his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 1st March, 1987. The workman challenged the termination of his services by raising an industrial dispute and he succeeded in that challenge on 5th December, 1996 when his reinstatement in service was ordered along with 50 per cent back wages by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 51/1990. The management challenged that award but failed in its writ petition (being W.P. (C) No. 1121/1999) filed before this Court and the workman was reinstated w.e.f. 7th August, 2002. While reinstating the workman the management regularized him also with effect from 7th August, 2002. The workman, however, felt that he should have been regularized from the date of his initial appointment, and, therefore, he raised another industrial which was also referred to the Industrial Tribunal and this writ petition arises out of that reference.

(3.) One of the grievances of the workman was that his co-employees who were junior to him had been regularized w.e.f. 1st April, 1991. This part of his case was admitted on behalf of the management in its written statement filed before the Industrial Tribunal. However, the reason given for not regularizing him in 1991 was that at that time he was not in service as his services were terminated in the year 1987 though it was admitted that the industrial dispute in that regard was pending adjudication. Learned Industrial Tribunal decided the reference by granting the relief of regularization to the workman with effect from 1987-88 relying upon the cross-examination of the management's witness (MW-1) to the effect that employees who were junior to the workman were regularized in the year 1987. Learned Industrial Tribunal gave him the same relief ignoring the fact that he himself had claimed in his claim statement that he had been discriminated against by the management by not giving him the relief of regularization from April, 1991 when his juniors were regularized.