DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eleven workmen, arrayed as respondents in the present writ petition, were all appointed as daily wage Lower Division Clerks (hereinafter referred to as "LDCs"), on muster roll, with the petitioner, on various dates between 15th September 1982 and 25th October 1984. It is not in dispute that the relevant Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred as "RRs") mandatorily required passing of written test and typing test, for regular recruitment as LDC, and that none of the respondents were, in fact, subjected to written test or typing test, prior to their initial recruitment as "daily wage muster roll" LDCs. It was only 12 to 14 years after the said workmen had been appointed, that they were given an opportunity to participate in the written test and typing test on 28th July 1996 and 24th August 1996 respectively.

(2.) At this stage, the aforementioned workmen raised an industrial dispute, claiming regularization, as LDCs, with effect from the respective dates of their initial appointment, without having to undergo any typing test. The said dispute was referred, by the Secretary (Labour), to the<RC>State Of U.P. V. J.P. Chaurasia, 1989 1 SCC 121</RC>,<RCG>REFERRED TO</RCG> Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), which registered the dispute as ID 36 of 1988, and adjudicated the same vide Award dated 15th July 1994. Detailed reference, to the said Award, is not called for, as, undisputedly, the Award was not challenged, and has attained finality. Suffice it to state that, relying on certain earlier orders passed by, inter alia, the Supreme Court and by this Court, the learned Tribunal held that LDCs working on muster roll were not entitled to be regularized from the dates of their initial appointment, without being subjected to typing test.

(3.) The penultimate para of the said Award notes a submission, mooted by the Authorized Representatives appearing for the workmen before the learned Tribunal, that, in view of various judicial decisions, on which they placed reliance, they be also held entitled to payment of salary, at par with regularly appointed LDCs, w.e.f. the dates of their initial appointment. On this suggestion, the learned Tribunal held thus: