Point of Law : Court that practice of the respondent Corporation in not regularizing the service of the workmen even though they have completed eight years of service, amounts to unfair labour practice.

ORDER :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having been filed by the petitioners-State (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondents’) lays challenge to the order dated 26.12.2018 passed by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.3965/2015, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order, whereby the respondents have been directed to regularize the services of the respondent-Original Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) as Beldar on completion of eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year on and with effect from 01.01.2001 alongwith all consequential benefits.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the petitioner was recruited as Daily Paid Beldar in the Animal Husbandry Department, vide memo dated 22.05.1992, and he was continuously working as such up till 09.06.2006, when vide office order of even date his services as Beldar were regularized. Though, as per policy for ‘Regularization of Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers’, issued vide letter dated 03.04.2000, services of the petitioner were required to be regularized from the date he had completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.2000, but since respondents, despite petitioner’s having completed eight years continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.2000, failed to regularize the petitioner on and with effect from 01.01.2001, he was compelled to approach erstwhile Tribunal by O.A. No.3965/2015, praying therein for the following main relief(s):-

“(i) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the Applicant on and w.e.f. 1.4.2000 with all consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, as per the policy dated 3.4.2000 read with the law laid down in Rakesh Kumar’s case and Som Nath’s case.

(ii) That in alternate work charge status on and w.e.f. 22.5.2002 may kindly be granted to the Applicant with interest @ 9% per annum.”

3. Claim of the petitioner as put forth in O.A. No.3965/2015 came to be resisted on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not covered under the policy issued vide letter dated 03.04.2000 because he had not completed eight years of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.3.2000. Respondents claimed before the Tribunal that next policy for ‘Regularization of Daily aged/Contingent Paid Workers’ was issued on 09.06.2006, and as such, petitioner was rightly considered in the subsequent policy dated 09.06.2006 and he cannot claim regularization in the interregnum after 31.03.2000 till 31.03.2004.

4. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, erstwhile Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.12.2018 allowed the Original Application in terms of judgment dated 31.07.2014 rendered by this Court in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled as: Mathu Ram vs. Municipal Corporation Shimla and others, which has been further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.10.2015 passed in LPA No.44 of 2015, titled as: Municipal Corporation Shimla and Others vs. Mathu Ram, wherein it was specifically held that:

The mere fact that there was a time gap in issuance of the policy of regularization which prescribed different cut off dates cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on his completion of 8 years of service on daily waged basis in terms of Rakesh Kumar (supra).

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by erstwhile Tribunal, respondents have approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal.

6. Ms.Rita Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, vehemently argued that judgment impugned in the instant petition is not sustainable in law being tot