INDER RAJ KUMAR Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the award dated 4th October, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-III, Delhi(in short `the Tribunal') rejecting his claim for his being treated as a regular LDC from the date of his initial appointment on a muster roll LDC with the respondent-management.

(2.) THE petitioner-workman admittedly was engaged by the respondent-management as a muster roll LDC in the year 1984. He continued to work as such till 1988 when the respondent-management decided to regularize the muster roll LDCs. THE muster roll LDCs were then required to take a written test as well as to clear the typing test upon their clearing the written test. THE petitioner-workman appeared in the written test held in the year 1988 and passed also but failed in the typing test which was also held in the same year. Next written test was held in December,1989 but the petitioner-workman did not take a chance in that test. In July, 1991 the respondent-management came out with a circular to the effect that those muster roll LDCs who had failed to qualify the written test held in December, 1989 were being given another chance to clear the written test and to take the typing test upon passing the written test. That test was held in October, 1991 and thereafter a typing test was also held for those who could clear the written test.

(3.) THE petitioner felt that since he had already cleared the written test in September, 1988 should also have been given the chance this time also to take the typing test straightaway he made a representation in January,1995 to the respondent- management to give him chance to appear in the type writing test. However, that request of the petitioner was declined by the respondent-management vide its communication dated 8th March, 1995. He, however, made another representation on 09.06.1995 but that also was rejected on 19.09.1995. Yet another representation was made by the petitioner-workman on 26th June, 1996 requesting the respondent-management to permit him to take the typing test on the basis of his success in the written test in September, 1988. He claimed that the Supreme Court had not ordered that those LDCs who could not clear the typing test prior to the year 1989 were not to be eligible to take another typing test on the basis of their success in the written test held in the year 1988 in which he had passed and so he should be permitted to take typing test only. This time, however, respondent-management accepted his request and vide its communication dated 23rd July, 1996 he was allowed to sit in the forthcoming typing test and he was granted exemption from appearing in any fresh written test. Undisputedly, the petitioner took typing test on 24.08.96 and he cleared the same and accordingly he was given regular appointment as LDC but with effect from 25th September, 1996.