An unchallenged reinstatement order fixing a later date of reinstatement creates a break in service, disentitling the workman from claiming regularisation under the employer’s policy, even if similarly situated workmen were regularised.

JUDGMENT

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

1. This intra-court appeal instituted under Clause X of the letters patent assails the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P.(C) 12253/2009 which was instituted by the appellant/petitioner, challenging the award dated 19.09.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. At this juncture itself we may note that by the award dated 19.09.2008 the learned Industrial Tribunal had rejected the claim of the appellant/petitioner for regularisation of his services on the post of Baildar with the respondent-Delhi Jal Board and accordingly, the reference dated 08.12.2006 made by the appropriate Government under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’) was answered. By the award dated 19.09.2008, the learned Industrial Tribunal held that the appellant/petitioner was not entitled to be regularised in service.

3. Facts in brief of this case are that the appellant/petitioner is said to have joined as Baildar on 08.05.1982 on daily wage basis/fixed wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Wages Act’) with the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, the predecessor of the respondent-Delhi Jal Board.

4. It is said that service of the appellant/petitioner were terminated with effect from 09.01.1993 without any charge-sheet or domestic inquiry. The appellant/petitioner is said to have been involved in a criminal case under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bora Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar in connection with which he was under custody and faced trial which resulted in his acquittal on 15.01.1995. After his acquittal, the appellant/petitioner is said to have reported for duty on 24.02.1995, however, he was not allowed to join his duties, and accordingly, an industrial dispute was raised on a reference made by the appropriate Government vide notification dated 29.09.1997 to the learned Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the issue, as to whether the services of the appellant/petitioner were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief was he entitled and what directions were necessary in that respect. The said industrial dispute (ID No.753/1997) was decided by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court – II, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi vide award dated 03.01.2002 whereby, it was held that termination of services of the appellant/petitioner w.e.f. 09.01.1993 was illegal and unjustified, with a further direction for his reinstatement in service as Baildar with 50% back wages, w.e.f from 17.07.1996.

5. It appears that pursuant to the said award of the Labour Court dated 03.01.2002, the appellant/petitioner was reinstated in service, however, he was not being regularised which led him to raise the second industrial dispute vide notification issued by the appropriate Government on 08.12.2006 for adjudication of the dispute, under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the ID Act. The dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal/Labour Court vide notification of the appropriate Government dated 08.12.2006 was, as to whether the appellant/petitioner was entitled to be regularised on the post of Baildar, and if so, from which date and to what relief was he entitled and what directions were necessary in that respect. The said industrial dispute raised by the appellant/petitioner was decided by the Presiding Officer of the learned Industrial Tribunal – II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide award dated 19.09.2008 wherein, it was held that the appellant/petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to regularisation from 01.04.1990 and further that he was not entitled to any relief or any direction from the Tribunal.

6. The said award dated 19.09.2008, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal – II was challenged by the appellant/petitioner by instituting the