The court held that claims for service regularization can be barred by delay and laches, and prior service cannot be counted if the employee was illegally terminated and did not meet the required working days.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Service of the petitioner was regularized by the respondent-Jal Shakti Vibhag on 24.02.2015 as Beldar. Instant writ petition was filed on 12.06.2023, wherein, petitioner seeks modification in the office order dated 24.02.2015 and desires ante dated regularization of his service w.e.f. the year 2006 on immediate completion of ten years of daily waged service.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as daily wage Beldar on 01.01.1996 in the respondent-Department. As per applicable policy for regularization of services of daily waged employees, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized in service on completion of ten years of daily wage service i.e. in the year 2006.

Petitioner’s above prayer cannot be accepted. The case file shows that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent-Department in August 2004. Reference No. 115/2011 sent in that regard by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal on 27.08.2011, was decided on 17.01.2013. Learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal partly allowed the claim by setting aside petitioner’s retrenchment. Respondent- Department was directed to reinstate the petitioner ‘forthwith’. Petitioner was held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date/month of his illegal termination i.e. August 2004, except back wages. Operative directions of the award are as under:-

“25. As a sequel to my findings on the various issues, the instant claim petition succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The retrenchment of the petitioner is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. He shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date/month of his illegal termination i.e. August, 2004 except back wages. Parties to bear their own costs.”

It is, thus, evident that service rendered by the petitioner prior to 2004 was not to be counted towards his seniority and continuity. Petitioner was ordered to be reinstated forthwith w.e.f. August 2004. In fact, learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal also held that petitioner had not rendered 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date/month of his termination i.e. August 2004. This is apparent from following paragraphs of the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal: -

“15. It is the admitted case of the respondent that the services of the petitioner were engaged as a daily wager on 01.1.1996 and he served intermittently up-to the month of August, 2004. The version of the petitioner is that in the month of August, 2004, his services were wrongly and illegally dispensed with by the respondent by a verbal order. While denying the said fact, the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner used to work as per his sweet will and convenience. In the month of August, 2004, he abandoned the job of his own accord and free volition.

16. …….

17. The man-days chart Ex. RW1/B depicts that the petitioner did not complete 240 days of work in a block of 12 calendar months preceding the date/month of his termination i.e. August, 2004 as envisaged under Section 25-B of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not attracted in this case.”

Respondents in their reply have clearly stated that petitioner was an intermittent worker who had worked for 218 days in 1996, 79 days in the year 1997, 259 days in the year 1998, 40 days in 1999. He did not work during the years 2000 to 2003. He worked for 106 days in the year 2004. Petitioner worked for 240 days w.e.f. 01.01.2004 onwards. Therefore, petitioner’s plea that service rendered by him prior to 2004 is also required to be taken into consideration while regularizing his service, cannot be accepted at this state. Award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal has attained finality.

4. L