ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were appointed as Beldar-cum-Malis on daily wage basis in the Forest Department between the years 1982-1996. Their services were terminated in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act), against which they raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court found the termination to be not in accordance with law and declared it to be null and void thereby ordering their reinstatement in service with continuity thereof. These awards were not challenged by the respondents and the petitioners were reinstated in service on different dates depending upon the date of the award.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has argued the case on the above lines and has submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents submits that the regularization policies under which the petitioners are claiming regularization of their services stand already withdrawn by the State of Haryana after the passing of judgment by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case . His contention is that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of regularization on the ground that they were neither appointed as per the Statutory Rules governing the service nor were they appointed on sanctioned posts. Petitioners are daily wage labourers who are engaged on seasonal work. There being no specific Rule(s) governing the engagement/appointment of labourers on daily wage basis, their services cannot be regularized. For appointment to a Government post, it is mandatory that the said post be advertised first giving a chance to all those to compete for the post and it is only thereafter that the post can be filled up. Such a procedure was not followed while appointing the petitioners which disentitles them to the claim for regularization. An order of regularization passed in violation of these provisions would not be in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case . Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. G.V. Chandrashekar, 2009 121 FLR 521 to contend that the appointments of the petitioners being violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained and, therefore, benefit of regularization cannot be extended to them. Accordingly, supporting the impugned order of rejection of the claim of the petitioners for regularization, Counsel contends that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.