Union of India (UOI) vs Shiv Ram and Others

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petition impugns the award dated 7th October, 2004 of the Labor Court directing the Petitioner to regularize the employment of the two Respondents/workmen, employed with the Petitioner on temporary basis, with effect from the date of their initial employment in the year 1986. The petition came up before this Court first on 20th February, 2006 when the writ petition was dismissed so far as the direction to regularize the workmen w.e.f. 1986 and payment of their full arrears w.e.f. 4th March, 1996 was concerned. Notice was issued limited to the point of payment of arrears from 1986 till 4th March, 1996 when the workmen had cleared/qualified the departmental test held for regularization of muster roll/temporary employees.

It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 was regularized w.e.f. 21st May, 1996 on clearing the departmental test and the Respondent No. 2 qualified the departmental test on 4th March, 1996 but notwithstanding the same his services were not regularized. The Respondent No. 1 has chosen not to contest the petition. The Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit but in which nothing qua the aspect on which notice was issued has been stated.

The arguing counsel for the Petitioner has chosen not to appear and adjournment is sought on his behalf. A perusal of the order sheet shows that the counsel for the Petitioner has sought adjournments for arguments on 10th March, 2008, 29th September, 2008, 1st April, 2009, 9th September, 2009, 28th January, 2010, 15th April, 2010 and 24th September, 2010. Rather the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 had also not been appearing for the last several dates and the Petitioner was also directed to file a synopsis of submissions but the same has also not been filed. In the circumstances the request for adjournment is declined. The counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has been heard.

The award under challenge does not deal with the aspect as to how the Respondents/workmen could have been regularized without clearing the departmental test. Records shows that the Respondents/workmen raised the dispute as to their regularization also only in the year 1997 i.e. after they had cleared the departmental test and not prior thereto, even though working since the years 1986.

In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Respondents workmen would not be entitled to arrears on the basis of regularization till the date of clearing the departmental test. The award impugned in the petition is modified to the aforesaid extent.

The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.