Point of Law : Industrial Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to pass an award in the present matter, still, this Court exercising its power under writ jurisdiction would not set aside the award.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner employer challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Lucknow dated 13.06.2017 published on 31.07.2017. By the said award the Tribunal has decided the reference in favour of the respondent workman. The award is passed on the following reference:-

"WHETHER THE DEMAND OF THE NORTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES UNION FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, LUCKNOW FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES OF SRI VISHRAM S/O SRI DINANATH FROM THE YEARS 1992-93, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED?' WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?'

2. I have heard counsels for parties and perused the record with their assistance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner employer submits that the Tribunal could not have directed for regularization of services of the respondent workman as the respondent workman has no right to claim regularization in view of the judgment passed in case of 'Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others'; reported in [(2004) 4 SCC 1]. He further submits that even otherwise it is beyond the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal to give an award with regard to regularization of services.

4. On the other hand, opposing the same, learned counsel for respondent workman submits that the Industrial Tribunal has not actually granted regularization to respondent workman but has only recognized the orders dated 13.02.2003 and 10.10.2003 passed by the management itself by which the respondent workman was already regularized. The Tribunal has only reflected upon the negligence of the officers of the petitioner employer for not implementing the orders already taken way back.

5. Facts of the case are that respondent workman was engaged as a daily wager in the year 1991. He was dis-engaged in the year 1992 against which he raised an industrial dispute and succeeded by an award dated 27.07.2005. Thereafter, he raised a claim for being regularized in services. His application for regularization was considered along with other entitled persons by the management. He relies upon number of letters of the management issued from time to time, including the letter dated 13.02.2003 and letter dated 10.10.2003 issued by the corporate office of B.S.N.L. addressed to CGM, BSNL, Lucknow regarding regularization of left out casual labourers. The Tribunal has given its award on the basis of letter dated 10.10.2003. The letter dated 10.10.2003 reads:-

"This office has further scrutinized the detailed information sent by your office for remaining cases and further 17 (Seventeen) TSMs/CLs (Sr. No. 6, 7, 11, 12, 118 and 127 to 138) have been found to be eligible for regularization at this stage. 3 cases (Sl. No. 50, 66 and 122) are under consideration for being CGA appointment. For the remaining 26 cases some additional information is required for processing the cases further.

2. Accordingly, approval of the Competent Authority is hereby conveyed for following:-

(i) (GM, U.P. (East) Telecom Circle is further authorized to create upto 17 (Seventeen) numbers of post of RM to regularize the eligible TSMs/CLs. If required after adjusting all the vacant post of RM in the Circle. The circle's ceiling limit will stand enhanced to this extent. These regularized employees will be BSNL, employees.

(ii) CGM is also authorized to grant age relaxation as required in individual cases for the purpose of regularization as per rules."

6. The Tribunal found that the name of the respondent workman appeared at Sl. No. 17, i.e., he was included in the 17 persons found eligible for regularization by the competent authority regarding to whom the approval of competent authority was also conveyed by letter dated 10.10.2003. This letter and fact that name of petitioner is in the list of regularized employees is not disputed in the writ petition or during course of arguments by the petitioner employer. In fact the entire writ petition is silent with regard to letter dated 10.10.2003