RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated January 7, 1993, passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. By this order, the petitioner's request for regularisation of his services as a Ticket Verifier has been rejected. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Ticket Verifier on September 16,1980. The appointment was on daily wages. In November, 1981, his services were terminated. The petitioner took no action for almost 6 years. On October 17, 1987, the petitioner issued a notice of demand to the respondents and raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on August 1,1988. On March 13, 1989, the Labour Court decided the dispute. It held that the termination of the petitioner's services by the respondents was not in conformity with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the order of termination was set aside. The Labour Court further held that in view of "the inordinate delay in raising demand notice on 17.10.1987 after a period of about 6 years from the date of impugned termination, it is ordered that the workman is not entitled to back wages prior to the date of demand notice viz. 17.10.1987. However, he shall be entitled to back wages and as well as other resultant benefits w.e.f. 17.10.1987 onwards." The Labour Court answered the reference accordingly. It appears that on January 11, 1990, the petitioner submitted a representation, to respondent No.2 and claimed regularisation of his services. On examination of the representation, the respondent ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to have entered into service with effect from August 3, 1986, "after adding the service rendered by him from 16.9.80 to 30.11.81." It was further held that "the period from 1.12.81 to 16.10.87 cannot be counted towards his seniority as the back wages were denied for the said period by the order of the Labour Court." Accordingly, the petitioner's prayer for regularisation was rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the respondents.