A. Srinivas vs APSRTC

The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the proceedings, dated 10.04.2013 refusing to regularize his services on par with similarly situated persons.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Petitioner had joined the service of respondent-RTC as a Cleaner on 15.03.1991. When his services were retrenched in July, 1993, he had approached the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad by filing I.D.No.101 of 1996, which was allowed by Award, dated 30.06.1999 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages. Questioning the said Award, respondents have filed W.P.No.3957 of 2000, which was dismissed by order, dated 2.12.2010 directing for reinstatement of petitioner on par with similarly situated persons whose services were regularized vide proceedings, dated 04.08.1997. However, the petitioner was reinstated on 04.08.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19737 of 2002 which was disposed of on 10.10.2011 directing the respondents to extend the benefits on par with similarly situated persons. Inspite of such direction, he was not treated on par with other employees. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation on 08.08.2011 to the 2nd respondent requesting to regularize his service on par with the other employees, as he also possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Cleaner and he is in between position with the other employees whose services were regularized vide proceedings, dated 04.08.1997. It is also his case that after his reinstatement in the year 2002, he has been continuously working. When his representation was not disposed of, he again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34477 of 2011, which was disposed of on 06.01.2012 directing the respondents to consider his representation, dated 08.08.2011. Pursuant to the said orders, the impugned order is passed by the respondents rejecting his representation, dated 08.08.2011. Hence, this writ petition.

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents admitting the service of petitioner and the orders passed by the Labour Court in the I.D. and also the orders passed by this Court in subsequent writ petitions. It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.11.1994, the persons appointed on daily wage / NMR basis or on consolidated pay who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and were continuing as on 25.11.1993 alone are eligible for regularization subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. It is their case that the petitioner has worked during the period from 1991 to 1993, and thus, did not work for a continuous period of five years and he was not on rolls as on 25.11.1993, and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization. It is also stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 01.07.2009 permitting the RTC to regularize the services of casual employees appointed in the Corporation during the years 2000 and 2001. Since the petitioner was reinstated in the year 2002, the respondents contend that he is not eligible for regularization. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined the service of respondent-Corporation on 15.03.1991 and he was retrenched in July, 1993. Such retrenchment was set aside by the Labour Court by Award, dated 30.06.1999 in the ID preferred by the petitioner, with a direction to reinstate him without back wages. The respondents have filed W.P.No.3957 of 2000 questioning the said Award, which was dismissed on 02.12.2020. However, pursuant to the interim orders in the said writ petition directing the respondents either to reinstate the petitioner into service or to follow the procedure under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondents have reinstated the petitioner into service on 4.08.2002 instead of reinstating him from 01.07.2009 on par with similarly situated persons. Therefore, since the Tribunal has set aside the retrenchment of petitioner vide its Award, dated 30.06.1999, the retrenchment of petitioner was held to be bad in the year 1999 itself. Therefore, it is deemed that the petitioner was in continuous service from the date of his appointment in the year 1991.

Further, the respondents have also not disputed the contention of petitioner that he was on better footing in terms of educational qualifications, compared to the persons whose services were regularized earlier. Since the retrenchment itself was held bad in the initial proceedings before the Labour Court, the respondents cannot rely on G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.11.1994, as they themselves did not reinstate the petitioner into service. Even otherwise, the petitioner satisfies the conditions prescribed in the said G.O., as he was deemed to be in continuous service from 1991 since his retrenchment was set aside by the Labour Court.

The respondents in their counter affidavit itself have stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 01.07.2009 permitting the RTC to regularize the services of employees appointed during the years 2000 and 2001, however, they denied the benefit of this G.O. also to the petitioner on the ground that he was not on rolls during those years, as he was reinstated only in the year 2002. The respondents themselves have waited till 2002 for regularizing the service of petitioner though the Labour Court has set aside their action of retrenching the petitioner from service by Award, dated 30.06.1999. It is also to be noted that the petitioner worked continuously from 15.03.1991 to July, 1993, and on this count also, he is eligible for regularization, as the similarly situated persons were regularized on the ground that they have put-in 240 days of continuous service. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be regularized with effect from 01.07.2009 on par with the similarly situated persons whose services were regularized from the said date vide proceedings, dated 18.07.2009 issued by the Regional Manager.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 10.04.2013. The respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner’s service on par with the similarly situated persons with effect from 01.07.2009 with all consequential benefits. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.