The court reaffirmed that long-serving employees, despite irregular appointments, are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the importance of continuity of service without considering minor lapses in employment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation of service from the date on which he completed ten years, with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri Ranganatha S. Jois and Sri S.Y. Rodagi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner joined the service of respondent No.5 as a heavy mazdoor-watchman (Group-D), on daily wages, with effect from 19.09.1979. He is said to have worked continuously until 1984, when he was orally terminated without any reasons assigned and without any enquiry.

4. The petitioner challenged this termination before the Labour Court by way of Reference No.46/1997. The appropriate Government referred the matter for adjudication, asserting that the dispute subsisted on the date of reference.

5. The Labour Court, by its award dated 12.08.1998, allowed the reference. It directed the petitioner’s reinstatement without back wages, but confirmed continuity of service. Respondent No. 5 subsequently filed Writ Petition No.13169/1999 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 31.05.1999, and he was reinstated on the basis of the Labour Court’s award, with continuity of service recognized.

6. Since his reinstatement, the petitioner has continued in service. He has made repeated representations seeking regularisation, but the respondents have instead given a partial relief: they included him under the Daily Wage and Welfare Act, 2012, rather than regularising him. The petitioner insists that he must be regularised, not merely covered by welfare legislation.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be regularised from the date on which he completed 10 years of service. It is submitted that the Labour Court had awarded continuity of service, the said award has attained finality, and the respondents have implemented the order.

8. The learned counsel further places reliance on two instances where similarly situated employees have been regularised, while the petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. He, therefore, seeks parity with others who have been regularised in service.

9. The learned HCGP, however, vehemently refutes the submissions of the petitioner, contending that the petitioner was out of employment from 1984 to 1999. It is submitted that the said 15-year period cannot be taken into consideration for computing 10 years of service, as the petitioner was terminated in 1984, which was merely five years after the date of his initial appointment.

10. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been brought under the Daily Wage Welfare Act, which is beneficial to him, and therefore regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1.

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 adopts the submissions of the learned HCGP in seeking dismissal of the petition, reiterating that the petitioner was out of employment between 1984 and 1999, and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

13. The above-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner’s appointment as a daily-wage employee on 19.09.1979 is a matter of record, as is his termination in the year 1984. The dispute was referred by the State nearly 13 years after the termination, and the reference was answered in favour of the petitioner. The award passed by the Labour Court is as follows:

“AWARD

THIS is a petition filed under Section-10 (1)(c) of I.D. Act, 1947, referred by the Government under its No: KE 1153 KKV 96 dt.10.4.1997 to adjudicate the industrial dispute that arose between the partie