The court established that continuous service post-reinstatement qualifies an employee for regularization, despite prior court intervention.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the order of learned Single Judge dated 04.03.2021 in Civil Writ Petition No.763/2008.

2. The case has a checkered history. The respondent was engaged as a Safai Jamadar on daily wage basis on 01.04.1996. His services were terminated on 27.05.1997. He raised an industrial dispute and challenged his termination. The Labour Court passed an award in his favour on 24.02.2004 directing his reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages. The Department challenged this award of the Labour Court by filing the Writ Petition No.547/2005, which was dismissed on 12.01.2006. Consequently, the workman was reinstated in service on 20.04.2006. Since then, he has been working continuously. He filed a fresh petition i.e. present Writ Petition No.763/2008 and sought benefit of regularisation. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by impugned judgment with following observations and directions:-

'6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is satisfied that this writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to be regularized on completion of 10 years of service counting from 1996 however, as the petitioner was not granted backwages up to the award which was passed on 24.2.2004, no fixation shall be made before 2004. The pay fixation of the petitioner shall be done notionally from 2004 upto the date he joined i.e. 20.4.2005. The actual pay fixation shall be awarded and arrears thereof shall be paid to the petitioner. The exercise shall be done within three months henceforth. If the same is not done, the petitioner shall be free to file contempt proceedings without further notice. No costs.

7. All pending applications also stand disposed of.'

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the petitioner was not covered under the scheme of regularisation framed by the State Government of which one of the requirements was that the employee should have completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006. She submitted that even if by virtue of the Labour Court award his services are treated to be continuous on deemed position basis, he must be seen to have been retained in service through intervention of the Court order. Therefore, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006)4 SCC 1, he cannot be regularised in service.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the original petitioner submitted that tenure of the petitioner was not protected by court order. All that the Labour Court did was to declare his termination illegal. Such declaration may have been made in the year 2004, nevertheless the same would relate back to the date of termination. Even otherwise the State Government has a policy of regularising ad-hoc or daily rated employees after putting in more than ten years of service. Many such worker have been regularized. The petitioner cannot be discriminated. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Jai Narain Vyas University and Anr. Vs. Mukesh Sharma (D.B. SAW No.347/2019), decided on 13.08.2021. He also relied on a Division Bench judgment of Tripura High Court in the case of Shri Basudeb Debnath and Ors. The Union of India and Ors., decided on 09.03.2021 and contended that the direction for considering the regularisation of the employees who have worked continuously for ten years without intervention of the Court as contained in the decision of the case of Uma Devi (supra), is not a onetime measure but a continuous exercise.

5. The facts on record would show that after initial engagement in the year 1996, the petitioner was terminated by the authorities about a year later. Such termination was challenged and set aside by the Labour Court in the year 2004. Actual reinstatement took place in the year 2006 when the Government petition was dismissed by th