IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 04.02.2025 Raj Karan & others ……Petitioner (s)

Versus State of Haryana & others ..…Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD S.BHARDWAJ Present:- Mr.Deepak Sonak, Mr.Vikas Sonak, Advocates, for the petitioners.

Mr.Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

****

VINOD S.BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) :

1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 29.06.2018 (Annexure P-11) as well as the regularization order dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure P-5) alongwith the order dated 20.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) to the extent whereby the services of the petitioners have been regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2014 instead of 01.10.2003, notwithstanding the Labour Court awards passed in their favour.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis with the respondent- Department as Water Pump Attendants and the work and conduct of the petitioners remained quite satisfactory and there is nothing adverse against them till date. The details of the petitioners are extracted as under:

Name Date of Date of Date of Relief appointment termination award Raj 01.11.1995 26.11.2001 10.02.2005 Reinstatement of the Karan continuity of service and full back wages.

Vijay 01.11.1995 26.11.2001 10.02.2005 Reinstatement of the Pal continuity of service and full back wages.

Naresh 01.04.1996 26.11.2001 10.02.2005 Reinstatement of the Kumar continuity of service and full back wages.

3. Counsel contends that the petitioners were working on the muster rolls of the respondents continuously since 1995/1996 but their services were wrongly retrenched by the respondents without following the statutory provisions. A demand notice under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was later served upon the respondents. The conciliation proceedings failed to resolve the dispute whereupon reference was sent to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to determine as to whether services had been validly terminated or not.

4. Parties led their respective evidence and on consideration thereof, the Labour Court held that the petitioners were wrongly retrenched without following the statutory mandate and without paying any retrenchment compensation. The petitioners were held entitled to the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since they had worked for a period of more than 240 days in the last 12 months preceding the date of termination of their services.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Labour Court awards have attained finality and the petitioners have been granted all the pecuniary benefits as per the award. He contends that the respondents-State framed the policy for regularization of daily wages employees on 07.03.1966, 18.03.1996 and 01.10.2003. The conditions for regularization are extracted as under:

“Such daily wages employees who have completed three years service on Group D Post on the cut of date and were in service on thereafter shall be regularized against their respective group D posts provided they fulfill the requisite qualification and were originally appointed against vacant posts. Provided further that they have worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and if the break in service of a daily wage employee has been caused for no fault attributable him, such break period should be condoned unless it is of an extraordinary longer period. However, if the break in service has been caused due to fault of the employee like abandonment of employment, the Government may not condone the same if the period of such break is more than a period of 30 days.”

6. He further contends that the petitioners had approached this Court for regularization of their services vide CWP-17978, 17974 & 18226-2013 and during the pendency of these writ petitions, the respondents passed orders dated 20.10.2014 and 07.10.2014 whereby services of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2014. Hence, the said writ petitions were rendered