( 1 ) MUNICIPAL Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as mcd , for short) which is petitioner in the instant case has filed this writ petition against award dated 13. 1. 1995 passed by Industrial Tribunal No. 2 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as it , for short) in I. D. 66 of 1987.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Gauri Shankar was engaged as Mali-beldar by MCD on 25. 10. 1983 and he continued to work for a substantial period of time and thereafter claimed regularisation of his service on the ground that the job against which he was working was of a permanent and regular nature and carries pay scale of Rs. 196-230 with usual allowances. As MCD did not concede his demand, he raised industrial dispute through Municipal Employees Union which was REFERRED TO by Secretary (Labour) vide notification No. F24 (743)/87-Lab/9341-46 dated. . . . . . . .

10. 3. 1987: Following are the terms of reference:- "whether Shri Gauri Shankar is entitled to be regularised as beldar/mali and if so, from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect?

( 3 ) WHEN this matter was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the MCD of its own regularised the services of respondent No. 1 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1989. However, since respondent No. 1 workman was claiming regularisation w. e. f. 25. 10. 1983, the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated upon this aspect of the matter and vide impugned award dated 13. 1. 1995 held that workman was entitled to be regularised from the date of his initial appointment i. e. , 25. 10. 1983 with all consequential benefits. Against this award present writ petition is preferred TO by MCD.

( 4 ) WHEN this petition came up for preliminary hearing, on 12th February, 1997 court issued notice limited to the following questoin:- CW. 601/97:

"limited to the extant that the Industrial Tribunal has given its finding that the workman be treated on continuous regular employment from the date of his initial joining 1mm 25. 10. 1983, issue notice to respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on. . . . "

( 5 ) IT would beworthwhile to mention that persuant to the aforesaid order all sums which were due to the workman from 1st April, 1989 in terms of the award were given to the workman.

( 6 ) THE only controversy which is to be decided is as to whether the award of the Labour Court in directing the regularisation of the workman from the date of his ini- tial joining i. e. 25th October, 1983 is in order or not.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner MCD, Ms. Anjana Gosain argued that regularisation of workman w. e. f. 25. 10. 1983 i. e. date of his initial appointment as directed by the Industrial Tribunal was not in order and could not be sustained in as much as the MCD has its scheme of regularisation as per which the casual workers are regularised on the basis of their seniority as casual employees. Respondent/workman was regularised w. e. f. 1. 4. 1989 on his turn and as per seniority of daily wagers beldars. As a daily wager he was engaged against specific sanction obtained from time to time and his appointment of daily wager was in the exigency of the work for a particular period which did not confer upon any right to be regularised.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal appearing for the workman has contended that this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should sustain the award passed by the IT even if there are holes here and there in the award and the award should not be set aside on hyper technical grounds. In sup- port of this submission, respondent have cited the following judgments :-

I. Sadha Ram versus Delhi Transport Corporation - AIR 1984 SC 1467 (para 3)

II. Harbans Lal versus Jaginohan Saran - (1985) 4 SCC 333 (para 5 ).

III. Calcutta Port Shrarnik Union versus Calcutta River Transport Association, 1988 Supp SCC 768 (para 10 ).

IV. Sudhoo versus M/s. ,haji Lal Mohammud Bidi Works and others - 1990 Lab. and I. C. 1538