An employee who has served for a substantial period of time, despite the irregular nature of their initial appointment, may be entitled to regularisation of service and payment of regular pay scale, especially if their right to service has been vindicated through an industrial dispute award.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Ram Avtar Gurjar,who has been working with the respondent as a Class-IV employee since 5.6.1999 seeking a direction to the respondent to regularise him in service and pay him regular salary of the post of Peon.

2. Facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Class-IV on 5.7.1992 with the respondents. He worked with them upto 5.6.1999, when he was removed. Petitioner was initially paid Rs. 10 per day as daily wages, which was increased to Rs. 40/- in June, 1998. An industrial dispute was raised at the instance of the petitioner and referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur for adjudication on the terms whether the petitioner was in continuous service as claimed, under Section 25-B of the I.D. Act in the Tonk Branch of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Bank from 1992 to 1999. If yes, what relief, he is entitled to and from which date? The aforesaid reference was answered in affirmative in favour of petitioner-workman and it was held that he was in continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the ID Act in Tonk Branch at the relevant time and was entitled to be reinstated with effect from 5.6.1999 with 50% back wages and continuity of service.

3. Shri Ribhu Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner having been granted benefit of continuity in service would thus be deemed to have worked with effect from the date of initial appointment on 5.6.1999. He is discharging the duties assigned to any other regularly employed Peon. He also delivers dak to other offices on behalf of the bank. The copy of the local delivery book has been produced on record. It is submitted that neither the petitioner has been paid regular salary on the post of Class IV, nor he has been regularised in service. Even the amount of remuneration paid to the petitioner is not only lesser than the notified minimum wages, but also far less than the wages of employees working in the MGNREGA. Learned counsel submits that even after reinstatement of the petitioner pursuant to the award dated 22.4.2004 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still being paid @ Rs. 40 per day, whereas prescribed minimum daily wage as per Minimum Wages Act for skilled labour is four times more than that. Learned counsel argued that respondent has entered into Ninth Bipartite Settlement with Workmen Employees representation by various workmen organisation on 25.5.2010. That settlement was extended to part time employees with effect from 1.11.2007 vide Circular dated 17.7.2010. As per clause 2 of the said agreement, the wages for workers working upto 3 hours a week shall be minimum Rs. 1030 per month and those who work for more than 3 hours, but less than 6 hours shall be minimum Rs. 1440 per month and those recruited on or after 1.5.2010 in part time scale were to be paid at minimum of one third of scale wages. It is contended that petitioner is till date being paid Rs. 40 per day which comes to Rs. 800 per month. As per clause 3 of the agreement a scheme for conversion of part time employee on consolidated wages was initiated to ⅓rd scale wages. It is very depressing state of affairs that a part time employee who is working for 3-6 hours in a week is being paid more than Rs. 1400 per month and those who are working on regular basis for full working hours are being paid only Rs. 40 per day. It is contended that petitioner has been working for last 19 years against the post which is of regular and permanent nature. It is substantial that the respondents are in need of his services. There is no reason not to grant him regular salary and appoint him as a regular worker.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Mahajabeen Akhtar AIR 2008 SC 435 wherein it was held that if a scale of pay in a higher category has been refixed keeping in view the educational qualifications and