W.P.(C) 5746/2003

Page 1 of 9

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 29.08.2022

Pronounced on: 12 .09.2022

+

W.P.(C) 5746/2003

BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED

....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Mr.Amit

Kumar

and

Mr.Vikas

Mehta,

Advocates.

versus

THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER

.... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Meghna De,

Ms.

Varsha

Sharma

and

Ms.Moksha Sharma, Advocates for

respondent No. 2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

J U D G M E N T

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the Award dated 06.05.2002 passed

by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III, Karkardooma, Delhi in

I.D. No. 107/1995 titled as “The management of M/s. Delhi Electric

workmen (Sh. Ramji Lal)” (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned

Award”) whereby the services of Respondent No. 2 i.e., the workman,

Ramji Lal, were regularised to the post of Mason Grade-I.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003659

W.P.(C) 5746/2003

Page 2 of 9

2.

To mention, subject to the compliance of the requirements brought

into effect by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2003, stay on the

Impugned Award was granted.

3.

The facts emanating from the record are that Respondent No. 2 was

initially appointed as a worker on work-charge basis. Later, he was

engaged as a Mason w.e.f. 24.03.1975. On 31.03.1976 his services were

terminated, thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute vide I.D. No.

66/1983. The learned Labour Court vide an Award dated 31.05.1985

found Respondent No. 2 entitled to the relief of reinstatement and

continuity in service with full back wages.

4.

Pursuant to the abovementioned Award, Respondent No. 2 was

reinstated into the services w.e.f. 29.04.1986. Thereafter, his services

were regularised w.e.f. 12.06.1986 on the post of Mazdoor in the pay

scale of Rs. 410/- to Rs. 580/-. The learned Tribunal vide the Impugned

Award directed regularisation of the services of Respondent No. 2 on the

post of Mason Grade-I w.e.f. 25.03.1977 in proper pay scale and

allowances. It further directed the Petitioner to pay the arrears of

difference of pay.

5.

Aggrieved, Respondent No. 2 against his regularisation at the post

of Mazdoor raised an industrial dispute. The Government of the National

Capital Territory of Delhi vide Order dated 19.10.95 forwarded the

reference to the Industrial Tribunal-III in I.D. No. 107/95 for adjudication

which read as:

“Whether Sh. Ramji Lal is entitled to be regularised as

direction are necessary in this regard?”

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003659

W.P.(C) 5746/2003

Page 3 of 9

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

6.

Learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the

policy of the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (hereinafter

referred to as “DESU”) was that any workman, who was appointed on

daily-rated basis under Class IV Category, irrespective of the post, after

completion of two years of continuous services has to be regularised on

the regular strength of DESU at the post of Mazdoor, now designated as

Assistant Lineman.

7.

The learned Tribunal wrongly assumed that Respondent No. 2 was

appointed as Mason initially. A workman is said to be appointed when he

is brought on regular strength of the department. The learned Tribunal

overlooked the fact that seniority is counted from the date when the

workman is brought on regular strength.

8.

He further asserted that for regularisation to the post of Mason

Grade-I, under the law, a workman has to fulfil the required condition of

the said post, and if he is not fulfilling the said conditions, he cannot be

regularised or appointed to the said post. An appointment to any post is

subject to the Recruitment Rule