The main legal point established in the judgment is that a workman's reinstatement under a tripartite settlement does not necessarily deprive the workman of the right to claim regularization, especially when the employer has taken a policy decision for regularization. The judgment also emphasizes the limited scope for interference with the findings of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.9912 of 2019

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 38 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard the appellant.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 9912 of 2019 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.722 of 2019

5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, the matter has been heard on merit and is being disposed of at this stage.

6. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(L) No.3809 of 2003 whereby and whereunder Award dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 57 of 1997 by which the direction has been issued for regularisation of respondent-workman w.e.f. 19.12.1997, has been refused to be interfered with while dismissing the writ petition.

7. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

It is the case of the respondent-workman that he was engaged as casual workman at Food Storage Depot, Airstrip, Panchananur, Gaya sometime in the month of September, 1977. The respondent-workman was not allowed to work since February, 1984 and as such Industrial Dispute has been raised under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1947).

A tripartite settlement was arrived among the parties dated 06.11.1989 and accordingly the respondent-workman was reinstated in service as a casual workman.

The appellant-Corporation has come out with two circulars dated 06.05.1987 and 09.09.1996, whereby the scheme has been framed for casual worker who has completed three months’ service on 02.05.1986, will be regularised in the service, if they fulfill the requisite qualification.

The workman since has not been regularized, in terms of the policy decision as contained in circulars dated 06.05.1987 and 09.09.1996, therefore, a Dispute has been raised which finally has been referred by making a reference to the effect that –

“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna in not regularising the services of Ch. Jamuna Thakur is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The said reference has been numbered as Reference Case No. 57 of 1997. The reference has been answered in favour of the workman directing the appellant-Corporation to regularise the workman w.e.f. 19.12.1997. The management has contested the claim taking the plea that the respondent-workman was not in service on the cut-off date, i.e., 02.05.1986 and as such, he is not entitled for benefit of the scheme.

The Tribunal has negated the above plea by taking into consideration the scheme by which requirement for regularization has been decided to be extended to all casual workmen who have completed three months service as on 02.05.1986, if such workmen are fulfilling the requisite qualification as provided in the scheme.

As per tripartite settlement dated 06.11.1989, the concerned workman has been reinstated in the service as a casual workman without back wages and the Tribunal has considered that once the circular has been implemented and benefit has been given to the similarly situated persons, the same cannot be denied to the respondent-workmen.

The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has refused to interfere with the Award, against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

8. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation, has taken