MEHENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Groundman by the District Sports Officer, Faridabad, on daily wages on 1.5.1989. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 1.3.1990 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, by an award dated 23.2.1993 directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service. Challenging the said award, the District Sports Officer, filed CWP 8511/94. The said writ petition was dismissed on 8.7.1994. Thus, the award has become final. It is also admitted fact that in pursuance of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner was taken in service and he has also been paid the full backwages. On 18.3.1996, the State of Haryana took the policy decision to regularise the services of those employees who completed three years of service as on 31.1.1996. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking regularisation of his services on the basis of the policy decision taken by the Government of Haryana in letter No. 6/38/95-GSI dated 18.3.1996. This claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services was opposed by the respondent on the basis that the industrial workers do not come under the said policy for regularisation and also on the ground that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 1.3.1990. A reading of the policy which is annexed as Exhibit P-6 does not show that it is not applicable to the industrial workers. It applies to all work-charged, casual or daily waged employees who have completed five years of service on 31.1.1996. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 1.5.1989 and has been in service. On 31.1.1996, he completed more than five years of service. Learned Counsel for the State argued that the petitioner was out of service from 1.3.1990 till the date of his reinstatement, in pursuance of the orders of the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has completed five years of service but the fact remains that the Industrial Tribunal in its award which has been confirmed by this Court in the writ petition, clearly stated that the petitioner has to be reinstated in service with full back wages and with continuity of service. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to be in service. When the petitioner is deemed to be in service, it cannot be said that he has not worked. A legal fiction will come into play. Therefore, the petitioner shall be deemed to have completed five years of service as on 31.1.1996. Therefore, he is entitled to have his service regularised under the policy decision of the Government dated 18.3.1996.