JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers had no objection with regard to the proceeding which was held through Video Conferencing and there was no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter was reserved for final disposal.

PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER - MANAGEMENT

2. Petitioner-Management has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Award dated 08.05.2009, pronounced on 27.05.2009, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, passed in Reference Case No. 76 of 1997, whereby a direction has been issued to the petitioner – Management for regularization in service of the respondent - workman.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER – MANAGEMENT

3. The case of the petitioner – Management is that the respondent – workman was appointed on 04.12.1982 purely on casual basis. The workman has never pleaded that either any appointment letter was issued to him or he was appointed against any sanctioned post or his appointment was made after following any selection procedure or through employment exchange. The workman even did not bring on record anything to show that he was having requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Hindi Typist in Food Corporation of India. On 06.05.1984, the casual service of the workman was terminated which was challenged by him before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad. Vide Award dated 08.08.1990, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad held that the workman completed 240 days of service and since he had not been paid retrenchment compensation, so his termination of service was wrong and a direction was made for his reinstatement. After his reinstatement in service on 10.05.1991, the workman is continuing in service on casual basis.

4. It is further case of the Management that on 03.02.1995, a Circular was issued inviting applications from internal candidates fulfilling eligibility criteria for filling up the post of Hindi Typist. Though a co-worker applied for the said regular post, but the workman/respondent did not apply for the same and chose to raise industrial dispute claiming regularization of service and got a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act vide Reference Case No. 76 of 1997. The said Reference was decided in favour of the workman holding that the concerned workman is entitled for regularization as Hindi Typist on regular basis since 13.12.1991 with full back wages and also entitled for pay protection from 08.05.1984 and a direction was passed to the Management to implement the Award within 30 days from the date of publication of the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the Management has preferred instant writ petition.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER-MANAGEMENT

5. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-management argues that litigious employment has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi reported in 2006 (6) SCC 1 and it has been held that the benefits of one time reglarisation to irregular workers who have put in more than ten years of service, cannot be extended to those who are in service only by virtue of orders of Courts and Tribunals. The concerned workman has not been able to bring on record the appointment letter nor did he possess the requisite qualification. The concerned workman never appeared in any selection process held by the Management. The concerned workman did not fulfil the conditions and criteria as laid down in FCI Staff Regulation of 1971. The direction to regularize the workman in service is totally contrary to law making the award unsustainable and the same is fit to be set aside. Relying on the Judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 789, learned counsel further argues that the Hon’ble Apex Court has deprecated the backdoor entry in any est