SURESH KAIT, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the impugned award dated 30.09.2010, passed by ld. Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Delhi, in I.D. No. 28/2009, whereby the ld. Tribunal has not directed the respondent / Management to regularize the services of the petitioner after taking into account his initial date of joining.

2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent / Management w.e.f. 03.04.1984 as a daily wager, however his services were terminated on 08.03.1996.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and vide first award dated 07.07.2000, petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages.

4. Pursuant thereto, the respondent / Management did not reinstate the petitioner in service and therefore, he was compelled to file an application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short “the Act”) claiming difference of salary form the period from 03.04.1984 to 08.03.1996 and back wages for the period from 09.03.1996 to 30.09.2000. However, the Regional Labour Commissioner vide order dated 04.12.2000, directed the petitioner / workman to get the amount computed from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Section 33C (2) of the Act.

5. The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition against the order dated 04.12.2000 passed by Regional Labour Commissioner and this court vide order dated 13.01.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1311/2003 set aside the aforesaid order and further directed the respondent / Management to reinstate the petitioner / workman.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join duties w.e.f. 19.04.2005 with continuity of his earlier service. The petitioner was also paid the back wages amounting to Rs.2,91,948/-for the period from 08.03.1996 to 15.07.2005 in July, 2005.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal demand notice dated 17.12.2007, whereby demanding his regularization in the post of Beldar with retrospective effect from the initial date of his joining, i.e., 03.04.1984 and also for payment of the entire difference of salary on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” from 03.04.1984 onwards.

8. Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent/ Management in regularizing his services, petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide order dated 29.05.2009 with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the demand of the Delhi Labour Union for regularization of services of Shri Rajinder Singh by the management of All India Radio, C.E. (N.Z.), Jamnagar House, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

9. Consequently, vide impugned order dated 30.09.2010, ld. Tribunal passed order as under:

“(a) The claimant has not been able to establish that unfair labour practice was being adopted and the management was under an obligation to purge the mischief.

(b) The Tribunal cannot proceed to command the Government to create a post for absorption of the claimant against it;

(c) All these circumstances make it clear that the demand raised by the union for regularization of the services of the petitioner, w.e.f 03.04.1984 is neither legal nor justified;

(d) With a view to do social justice, this Tribunal has to command the management to grant wages to the claimant at the rate of 1/30TH of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowances applicable to regular employees of his category of 8 hours a day, since the date of reinstatement in service.

(e) In view of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2008 (4) SCC 1, I do not find it to be a case where the management should be commanded to absorb the claimant on the post on which he is working since long.”

10. Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner / workman submitted that the ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been working with