( 1 ) THIS writ petition by the employer Delhi Jal Board challenges the award dated 18th January, 2000 in I. D. No. 226/1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal which ordered the regularizing of the respondent No. 2 on the post of Lab Technician from August, 1992. The respondent No. 2 is a graduate in Chemistry from a recognized University and worked as a Lab Technician with the petitioner since 1971. The respondent No. 2 claimed before the Tribunal that he was employed with the petitioner as Lab Technician since 1971 and in between his services were illegally terminated by the petitioner which resulted in the award dated 21st November, 1987 by the Industrial Tribunal in the respondent No. 2 s favour directing reinstatement. The said award dated 21st November, 1987 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner management by filing CWP No. 2768/88 in this Court which was ultimately dismissed in limine on 19th February, 1991. By the said award dated 21st November, 1987 it was held that no charge sheet was given to the petitioner and no compliance of Section 25f of the I. D. Act was made and consequenty this termination of the respondent No. 2 s services was illegal and the respondent No. 2 was entitled to reinstatement with full back wage. The respondent No. 2 s plea that he was a loyal employee who attended duty even when there was a strike on 10. 7. 1979, and his further plea that while all other employees on strike who were removed from service were taken back, the respondent No. 2 was not taken back, was not effectively denied by the petitioner Jal Board in the proceeding in CWP No. 2768/88.

( 2 ) EVEN after the dismissal of the writ petition on 19th February, 1991, the management allowed the respondent No. 2 to resume duty only as late as 27th January, 1992. It is stated that the management is evading the full implementation of the award and is paying a meagre sum of Rs. 1150/- per month as wages to respondent No. 2 which is less than minimum wages of a Beldar even though the respondent No. 2 is a Science graduate. The respondent No. 2 s claim was contested by the petitioner management and the objection on technical grounds such as the wrongful espousal of the dispute was raised. The said objection was not seriously pressed when it was shown that the respondent No. 2 s case was espoused by the representative union of M. C. D. and such objection was therefore rightly rejected by the Labour Court. The main thrust of the petitioner s claim on merits raised by Shri Arvind Nayar, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent NO. 2 in his testimony had admitted that he had never worked as Chemist/asstt. Chemist and filled up the forms for regularisation only in 1992. The counsel for the respondent has pointed out rightly that he fulfills all the qualifications for the post of Lab. Technician and his claim was not for the post of Chemist/asstt. Chemist and regularization has also been granted only with effect from 1992 on the post of Lab. Technician.

( 3 ) THE requisite qualifications prescribed by the petitioner for the post of Lab Technician as per the Recruitment Rules relied upon and annexed by the petitioner are as under:

"recruitment Rules for the post of Technicians 46. htm

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 is a graduate in Chemistry from a recognized university. Mr. Nayar s contention is prima facie attractive but is not sustainable because the impugned award grants regularisation to respondent No. 2 only on the post of Lab Technician and not on the post of Chemist/asstt Chemist. Consequently, the respondent No. 2 s admission that he did not work as a Chemist/asstt. Chemist is not material. It is not in dispute that since 1971 upto 1992, respondent No. 2 had worked as a Lab Technician.

( 5 ) MR. Nayar states that for a selection post the regularisation cannot be granted without a D. P. C. In my view the recruitment rules itself show that the post of Lab Technician was a n