JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1.The State is in appeal.

2.The workman approached the Labour Court contending that he had initially been appointed on a part-time basis with the Learning Development Center, but the said center came to be shut down, and as a consequence, he was relieved from service. The workman, thereafter, approached the Industrial Tribunal challenging the act by which he was relieved from service, and the Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated 12.02.2008, directed that the workman be reinstated. The Tribunal also awarded continuity of service and also 50% back wages.

3.The Management, i.e., the State, challenged the said award before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10297 of 2008. The said petition was allowed, in part, on 11.02.2013, and while the award of reinstatement was confirmed, the award of back wages was set aside. In other words, the workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service but with no back wages.

4.Pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 11.02.2013, the workman was reinstated on 08.03.2013.

5.Thereafter, in the year 2016, the workman raised another dispute in which he sought regularization from the date that he had been reinstated, i.e., on 01.04.2013. The Tribunal accepted this claim of the workman and made an award directing the regularization of the services of the workman. The Labour Court made it clear that the regularization would be from the date of the publication of the award.

The date of publication of the award was 01.07.2024.

6.It may be pertinent to state here that though the appellant had sought regularization from 01.04.2013, this claim was not granted, and on the other hand, the Tribunal directed that his services be regularized only from the date of the publication of the award. The Labour Court, in addition to granting regularization, also held that the notional benefit for the purposes of retiral benefits should be granted for the period prior to the regularization, i.e., for the period of service that the workman had worked.

7.At this stage, it is to be stated here that, admittedly, the workman has been working since the year 2000, and by virtue of the award of reinstatement and continuity of service granted to him on 12.02.2008, he is deemed to be in service right from 2000. To put it differently, the workman is deemed to have served for a period of 26 years, and his regularization has been ordered only after his completion of 24 years. This would indicate that the period prior to the grant of the award is still being considered as a period during which the appellant was not a regular employee.

8.As stated above, the State is in appeal challenging the award of the Labour Court by which the services of the workman are ordered to be regularized. Learned AGP strenuously contended that the workman was not entitled to be regularized as he was only working on a part-time basis and was getting monthly wages. She contended that since the workman had worked only as a part-time employee, the benefit of regularization should not be granted.

9.The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has come to the conclusion that it was unfair on the part of the State to contend that the workman was not entitled for regularization despite the fact that he had worked for 24 years. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the argument that no recruitment procedure was followed and, therefore, the services of the workman cannot be regularized would be incorrect, more so, when there was evidence on record indicating that there was a sanctioned post in which the workman was working.

10.In a case where it is not in dispute that the workman has worked for nearly a quarter of a century, i.e., for 24 years continuously, the Labour Court, as well as the learned Single Judge, were perfectly justified in holding that such a workman was entitled to have his services regularized.

11.It is to be stated here that in the normal course, an