The regularisation of workmen under the law and the lack of merit in the writ petition.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it was dismissed on 28th April, 2003, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid petition.

( 2 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners--employers U. P. State Electricity Board (now U. P. Power Corporation Limited)have challenged the impugned award dated 3rd September, 1990, passed by the Industrial tribunal-I, U. P. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in Adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

( 3 ) FROM the narration of fact, it appears that the respondent workman Mohd. Jamil was employed in September, 1977 as a muster roll employee on daily wages. The services of the workmen were terminated in the year 1979, therefore, an industrial dispute was raised in which two questions were required to be answered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal after going through the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties while deciding the point No. 1 have found that the termination of services of concerned workmen, namely, Mohd. Jamil and Nand Lal, were illegal and therefore, directed for re-instatement of the workmen concerned. The point No. 2, i. e. , whether the workmen are entitled for regularisation/confirmation, which was framed in such a manner that the need of its decision will arise only if point No. 1 was decided in favour of workmen, namely, Mohd. Jamil and Nand Lal, i. e. , whether the termination of the two workmen were legal or justified, if not the Industrial Tribunal was to decide as to whether the workmen have become regular/ permanent employees. The Tribunal answered the point No. 1 in favour of the workmen, therefore, there was no justification to have let point No. 2 to be decided. Aggrieved thereby, the workmen concerned have approached this Court and filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983. This Court vide its order dated 19th February, 1990, allowed the writ petition set aside the order dated 30th August, 1983, to the extent that it does not require any decision on the second question and directed the Tribunal to decide the second question relating to confirmation/ permanency of the two workmen named in the reference. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 19th February, 1990, runs as under : "the writ petition, as such, is liable to be allowed. The order dated 30. 8. 1983 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) is quashed and Industrial Tribunal-1, U. P. at Allahabad is directed to decide the second question relating to confirmation/permanency of the two workmen, named in the reference, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. "

( 4 ) AS a consequence of the Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1990 being allowed, the matter was taken up by the Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for both the parties have decided the second question in favour of the workmen by the award impugned in the present writ petition. The labour court have considered the intervening facts, which have been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners in the following manner : "it was held that Mohd. Jamil shall be deemed to be in unbroken continuous service for a period of 8 years. However, on point No. 2 regarding his permanency the Court simply held that it is well warranted in a case like this that the employers even on human consideration should examine the possibilities of absorbing the workman Mohd. Jameel on a job of regular nature. Against this award also Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17727 of 1985 has been filed. It was connected with earlier Writ Petition No. 15509 of 1983 and ultimately in Writ petition No. 15509 of 1983, his Court passed the order directing this Tribunal to decide the point No.