OM PRAKASH AND ORS. Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the Award dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 114/2008 whereby it was held that the workman was entitled to be considered for regularization on their respective posts on the basis of policy of regularization followed by Management, if they fulfil the criteria for regularization but they are not entitled for regularization from initial date of their engagement, i.e., 1989.

(2.) The petitioner No.1 joined the services of the respondent w.e.f. 1st June, 1989 as a chowkidar while petitioner No.2 joined services of the respondent w.e.f. 10th November, 1989 as beldar. Services of both the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "workmen") were terminated on 1st October, 1991. The termination was challenged by the workmen and vide Award dated 31st May, 2001, the termination was held to be illegal and unjustified. The workmen were held entitled for re-instatement in service with 50% back wages. It is the case of the workmen that despite reinstatement, the respondent failed to regularize their services. Therefore, the union of the workmen, namely, the Municipal Employees Union espoused the cause of the workmen for regularization and effected legal demand notice on 22nd November, 2005. As the management failed to respond to the legal demand notice, an industrial dispute was raised by the union by filing a statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer. On failure of conciliation proceedings, GNCT of Delhi referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal:-

(3.) The statement of claim was filed by the workmen before the Industrial Adjudicator alleging that they were entitled to be treated as regular and permanent employees from the initial date of their joining in proper pay scale and allowances on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" at par with their counter parts. A written statement was filed by the respondent disputing the claim of the workmen on the ground that the management has its own policy of regularization in phased manner according to which an employee should complete 240 days in one calendar year and 720 days in a period of four years. The workmen never worked for 240 days in any calendar year preceding to their alleged termination of service, hence they are not entitled for regularization. Both the parties adduced their evidence. The Industrial Adjudicator came to a conclusion that vide award Ex.WW1/4, the workmen were ordered to be reinstated in service "with immediate effect" and, as such, there was nothing in the award that the workmen were actually to be reinstated with continuity of service. In the absence of such direction, the period of absence of the workmen after termination of their services till the date of reinstatement cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing continuity and total service of the workmen.