BHOOP SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CPWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE notice. Mr. Saqib, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent. With the consent of learned counsel, the matter was heard finally. The Appellant, Shri Bhoop Singh, is challenging an order of a learned Single Judge dated 11.04.2013 passed in W.P. (C) 1737/2011. Briefly, the facts of this case are that on 01.09.1981, the appellant was engaged as a muster roll employee, as a carpenter in the Central Public Works Department (hereinafter "CPWD".) Subsequently, on 03.06.1989, he was regularized. On 18.11.1986, another individual, Shri Ramji Lal, junior to Shri Singh, was also engaged as a muster roll employee, as a carpenter. Shri Lal was regularized with effect from 18.11.1986, pursuant to an award dated 02.09.1997, in ID No. 26/1996. As a result of this development, the appellant raised an industrial dispute on 13.09.1999, which was referred by the Central Government (as ID No. 196/1999), seeking regularization with effect from 18.11.1986, (i.e. the same date as Shri Lal, the appellant's junior in employment).

(2.) IN the industrial dispute so raised by the appellant, an award was made by the Labour Court on 12.02.2010, granting regularization with all consequential benefits to him with effect from 18.11.1986. Challenging this, the CPWD filed W.P. (C) 1737/2011, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the above award. The learned Single Judge set aside the award, and held in favour of the CPWD, rejecting the appellant's request for regularization with effect from 18.11.1986. The present proceedings challenge that order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is contrary to well -settled service jurisprudence. It was submitted that the case of the appellant is one of discrimination, and not where the principle laid down in Umadevi (supra) will apply. Moreover, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana, : (2009) 8 SCC 556, in support of the proposition that the Industrial Court's powers are not to be denuded by a reading of the Umadevi (supra) case. Further, learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that since the judgment in Kilob Singh (supra), several other orders have been passed, both by this Court and the Supreme Court, wherein regularization was granted on similar facts. Learned counsel also argued that the Labour Court was correct in its findings that no junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior, given that any deviation from this principle will have demoralizing effort in service apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution.