RAKESH MUNI TYAGI Vs. DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the industrial award dated 02.09.2008 passed in I.D. No. 131/2005 by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has answered the reference made to it by the Appropriate Government on 08.08.2005 against the petitioner workman and in favour of the respondent management. The reference made to the Industrial Tribunal by the Appropriate Government reads as follows:

(2.) The stand taken by the respondent management in their written statement, inter alia, was that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis as Retainer Crew Conductor, which was dispensed with w.e.f. 29.10.2003 under Para IV of the Executive Instructions. An issue was also raised regarding the petitioner's arrest for more than 8 days for which he did not give any information to the respondent. The respondent claimed that no inquiry was called for before termination of the service of a Retainer Crew Conductor, since the termination was on the basis of the terms & conditions of appointment. The parties led their respective evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the letters dated 04.08.1998 & 05.08.1998, which contained the terms & conditions of employment of the petitioner. In respect of the terms & conditions, the Tribunal observed as follows:

(3.) By placing reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others, 2006 4 SCC 1 the Tribunal held that the petitioner was not entitled to regularization of his service. This finding of the Tribunal, in my view, is unexceptionable. It is not the petitioner's case that his appointment was made in terms of the recruitment rules through a public recruitment process. He was merely a Retainer Crew Conductor, i.e., he was offered service on daily basis. He was being paid only on daily basis whenever his services were availed of.