DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE Vs. DUNI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner-department to set aside award dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala ( in short " the Tribunal") in reference No. 141 of 2015, whereby Tribunal below while answering the reference directed the petitioner department to regularize the services of the respondentworkman (hereinafter referred to as the workman) w.e.f. 1.1.2004 as per policy framed by the State Government from time to time. The Tribunal below vide award impugned in the instant proceedings also held the workman to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the workman, who was initially engaged on daily wage basis as beldar on muster-roll basis in the month of August, 1995 and continued to work in that capacity till 20. 7.2003, raised an industrial Dispute against his illegal retrenchment by the petitioner-department vide notice dated 18.7.2003. Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Act referred the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication, which came to be registered as reference No. 35/2008. Tribunal while answering the aforesaid reference in favour of the workman set aside the retrenchment of workman vide award dated 16.2.2011 holding workman entitled for reinstatement with seniority and continuity in service. Workman after passing of aforesaid award though immediately made himself available for joining, but he came to be reengaged w.e.f. 13.7.2011 instead of 16.2.2011. It is not in dispute that aforesaid award dated 16.2.2011, passed by the Tribunal in reference No. 35/08 never came to be laid challenge on behalf of the petitionerdepartment and as such, it has attained finality. Vide award dated 16.2.2011, Tribunal below held the workman to have completed eight years of continuous service with 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.12.2003 and as such, workman claimed that he is entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2004, under the regularization policy of the State Government, but since his such claim was ignored, he approached the appropriate Government for reference of dispute to the Tribunal. The appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal with following reference:

(3.) Learned Tribunal below vide impugned award dated 20.12.2016, answered the reference in favour of the workman and directed the petitioner department to regularize the service of the workman w.e.f. 1.1.2004 as per policy governing daily wagers so framed by the State Government. Tribunal also held the workman to be in continuous service of the respondent with all consequential benefits. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner department has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.