The refusal of regularization after reinstatement is untenable when termination is deemed illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This is a classic case of the appellant-University having mishandled litigation, misinterpreted orders and mistook observations in contempt cases. The sole respondent had initiated his claim for reinstatement by a reference sought under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947¹[for brevity ‘ID Act’] and had agitated his cause again under Section 33C (2) of the ID Act, both of which were challenged by the appellants. Though reinstatement as directed by the Labour Court was eventually carried out, after much delay, regularization was denied. A further litigation was initiated by the respondent for regularization challenging the order of the Syndicate denying it, which has now reached this Court, the High Court having permitted it by the impugned judgment.

3. There were a batch of Special Leave Petitions clubbed together on the ground that the very same claim of regularization was agitated against the University in all the said SLPs. Before commencement of arguments, it was pointed out that the present appeal stands distinct from others for reason of the respondent herein having approached the Labour Court at the first instance, which order has attained finality. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-University, the others having not agitated their cause before the appropriate Authority are attempting to urge their claim on the basis of the claim of the respondent herein. None of the other petitioners have approached the Labour Court at the first instance and hence in such circumstances, we detached the above matter to be heard separately.

4. Shri Vipin Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-University submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the order in Jai Narain Vyas University , Jodhpur & Anr. v. Jitendra Kumar (Annexure P6) by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which on facts is not at all applicable to the present case. It is submitted that therein, a person was continued for 20 years uninterruptedly, in which circumstance, it was held that his case would squarely fall within the dictum of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1. In the present case there was no such continuation for a period extending over 10 years and in any event the respondent was merely employed through a contractor, which does not give him any right for continuation or for regularization. The continuance of the respondent after he was reinstated was only on interim orders issued by the Writ Court, which cannot inure to the benefit of the respondent as has been held in Uma Devi, (supra). It is alternatively argued that even if his reinstatement is upheld, he cannot be granted regularization since the initial appointment was not in order and was illegal.

5. Shri Devashish Bharuka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent points out that the challenge against the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement was dismissed as infructuous. The University had granted reinstatement but had refused regularization, which goes against the spirit of the order of the Labour Court. The respondent was never appointed under a contractor as found by the Labour Court and he was paid directly by the University. The respondent has to be regularized and continued till his superannuation.

6. As we noticed at the outset, there are three layers of litigation. The respondent admittedly worked as a Junior Clerk between 16.12.1994 and 31.12.1997. He was terminated by an order of the Dean, Faculty of Law, who had also made the payment of salary to the respondent directly. The resp