JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present Writ Petition emanates from the Award dated 09.07.2001, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal II, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, in I.D. No. 49/1992 titled as `The management of M/s. Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Its workman Smt. Shanti Devi as represented by Municipal Employees Union ("Impugned Award"). Vide the Impugned Award, the learned Labour Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner and held that even though Petitioner is a workman under the I.D. Act, however, she has always been a part-time worker. The learned Labour Court further held that the Petitioner/Workman was never taken as muster roll/daily wage employee by Respondent No.1/Management in its employment. Hence, she cannot claim any regularization of her service as full time Safai Karamchari as per the policy of Respondent No.1/Management. The Petitioner vide the present petition is inter alia praying to set aside the Impugned Award and further direct Respondent No.1 to regularize the services of the Petitioner with effect from 01.07.1987 i.e., her initial date of appointment as Safai Karamchari.

FACTS GERMANE TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2. At the outset, it is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that she joined the employment of Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking with effect from 01.07.1982 as a Sweepress. She further claims that initially she was paid an amount of Rs.40/- per month and was performing four hours of duty daily during the period from 17.01.1987 to 16.04.1987.

3. Further, on 17.01.1987, Respondent No.1 vide its order engaged the Petitioner/Workman as a full-time Sweepress for a period of 3 months or till a regular substitute was provided in her place, whichever was earlier.

4. On 17.04.1987, the Petitioner claims that she was removed from her services and was kept under enforced unemployment till June, 1987 when she was given the job on part-time basis on monthly wages of Rs.100/- per month. It is also her claim that she was given assurances that she will be given full time job within few days. However, she was completely ignored and meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to her were regularized on the post of Safai Karamchari as a full time worker.

5. Subsequently, on 22.07.1987, Respondent No.1 while replying to the representation of the Petitioner for engagement as a Sweepress on muster roll stated that she can be engaged as a part-time Sweepress @ Rs.40/- per month. Further, Respondent No.1 also asked the consent of the Petitioner if she was willing to work as a Part-time Sweepress.

6. Further again on 29.10.1987, Respondent No.1 while replying to another representation of the Petitioner for engagement as a Sweepress on muster roll stated that she can be engaged as a part-time Sweepress @ Rs.100/- per month. Further, Respondent No.1 also asked the consent of the Petitioner if she was willing to work as a Part-time Sweepress without claiming regular appointment. Subsequently, the Petitioner vide her letter dated 30.10.1987, consented to being appointed as a part-time Sweepress @ Rs.100/- without claiming any regularization.

7. On 20.03.1991, the Petitioner addressed an application to Respondent No.1 for regularization of her services and further payment of wages at full rates.

8. It is further the case of the Petitioner that on 30.05.1991, a demand notice (Ex. WW1/1) was sent by the Petitioner/Shanti Devi by registered post wherein the Petitioner demanded Respondent No.1 to regularize the services of the Petitioner/Shanti Devi as a full time Safai Karamchari in proper pay scale and allowances with retrospective effect since juniors to her have been regularized in services with all consequential benefits. However, it was not replied by the Respondent No.1.

9. Respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 26.09.1991, after going through the case of the Petitioner rejected the case