LABH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is for regularization of services with effect from 1.10.2003. The petitioner was appointed as mali -cum -chowkidar in 1994. He was retrenched from service in November, 1996. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the labour court, Ambala. The labour court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The award was passed on 18.7.2003. The award was called in question before this court. Vide order dated 19.10.2007, the award was set aside. However, on a review application, the order dated 19.10.2007 was recalled by the division bench of this court on 20.3.2008. The review application was allowed to the extent of setting aside reinstatement of the workman and the review order was confined to the question of back wages. It was specifically directed that the reinstatement would mean that the workman gets back to the same status as was held by him prior to termination and not the status of a regular employee. It was further ordered and made clear that the review order will not debar passing of any fresh order in accordance with law. Against the order in review, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1949 of 2011 arising out of SLP (C) No. 11967 of 2008. Before the Supreme Court, an order dated 28.6.2004 was shown, by which, a large number of daily wage employees such as the appellant -petitioner have been regularized with effect from 1.10.2003 and the petitioner was left out only because of litigation that ensued meanwhile. The Supreme Court vide order dated 17.2.2011 directed as follows: -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner points out from the office order that Dharam Pal at Serial No. 6, Phool Chand at Serial No. 9, Anil Kumar at Serial No. 13, Sukhvinder Singh at Serial No. 20, Jaswant Singh at Serial No. 24, Dinesh Kumar at Serial No. 28 and Shis Kumar at Serial No. 36 were in service when the petitioner was retrenched from service. It is asserted that they were junior to the petitioner, at that time. The petitioner made a written request for grant of regularization with effect from 1.10.2003 when junior employees came to be regularized. When no action was taken on his request, the petitioner approached this Court through CWP No. 24562 of 2012 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation. The order was passed on 19th December, 2012.

(3.) THE directions of the Supreme Court supra have been misread and brushed aside in the aforesaid manner without due application of mind. The directions of the Supreme Court dated 17.2.2011 are more than clear and have apparently been twisted to injure the petitioner. The respondents have been directed to consider the case of the appellant for regularization in terms of the Government "instructions" aforesaid. The direction "aforesaid" refers to the "instructions dated 28.6.2004". The "instructions" dated 28.6.2004 are none other than the office order No. 7329 dated 28.6.2004 (P -2) where similarly situated daily wage employees who have completed 3 years of service as on 30.9.2003 were brought on regular cadre with effect from 1.10.2003. On 1.10.2003, the petitioner's services stood terminated and remained under litigation. The reinstatement came on 18.7.2003 through the award of the Labour Court.