KAMAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was engaged in the month of June 1998. His services were retrenched in the month of March 2004. He raised industrial dispute. Matter was referred to learned Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal vide reference No. 4/2011. Petitioner was engaged during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal. However, learned Tribunal vide award dated 23.5.2012 held the petitioner entitled to seniority and continuous service from the date seniority of his junior was reckoned.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner in a nutshell is that though he had completed eight years continuous service but his services have not been regularised.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad versus Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, : (1990) 1 SCC 361 have held that practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. Their Lordships have further held that the initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service and once the appointments are made as daily rated workers and they are allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification. Their Lordships have held as under: