JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Rule.
2. Petitioner was engaged as Beldar by MCD w.e.f. September 1, 1970. He was assigned duties of Painter on November 15, 1976. Respondent MCD has scheme for regularisation of daily wage workers and the seniority list of such daily wage workers is maintained as per which daily wagers are regularised on their turn when the posts on regular basis become available. The name of the petitioner was entered in the list of daily wage Beldars and as per that list his turn to get regularised on the post of Beldar came in 1978 and accordingly orders were passed in 1982 regularising him as Beldar w.e.f April 1, 1978. He accepted the same and started working as Beldar on regular basis also getting benefit i.e., salary and allowance etc. However, thereafter he raised industrial dispute raising the grievance that he should have been regularised as Painter as on the date when he was regularised as Beldar, he was in fact working as Painter on daily wage basis. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal which was registered as ID No. 99/89 with the following terms of reference:
"Whether Shri Sarjoo Parshad is entitled to be regularised as Beldar w.e.f. 1970 and as Painter w.e.f. 1976 and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"
3. Vide Award dated March 11, 1998 the Industrial Tribunal has refused to grant the relief to the petitioner deciding the reference against him. The operative part of the impugned award reads as under:
"The workman had joined as Beldar on muster roll on September 1, 1970 and worked till November 14, 1976 when he was made Mate on muster roll daily wages. Having regard to his seniority as a Beldar he was regularised retrospectively from April 1, 1978 as a Beldar and the benefits of the same were received by the workman. Since then the workman is working as a Beldar. I do not find any merit in the claim of the workman for his regularisation as a Painter from the date he started working as a Painter or from any subsequent date. The management admittedly has a policy for regularising its daily rated employees. Since the workman had started working as a Beldar in the year 1970, having regard to his seniority he was made regular as a Beldar. It was open to the workman to contend that he was not interested in regularisation as Beldar and would like to work as mate on muster roll till his turn for regularisation as mate arrived. But he did not do so. He accepted regularisation as a Beldar and received benefits thereof. It is not open to him to raise the dispute after having worked as Beldar for over 10 years to claim regularisation as a Mate from 1976. Since the daily rated workers have been regularised in a phased manner. Keeping in view their date of joining the workman is not entitled to seek regularisation as Beldar from the date of his joining as it would prejudiciously affect the claim of the persons who had joined earlier to him. I, therefore, find no merit in the reference, Reference is decided against the workman."
4. I find no infirmity in the award. It is rightly held by the Industrial Tribunal that when the turn of the petitioner to become regular Beldar on the basis of his entry as Beldar on muster roll w.e.f. September 1, 1970 came, he accepted the said benefit and thereafter continued to work as Beldar on regular basis. Therefore, it was not open to him to raise dispute after having been regularised as Beldar for over 10 years.
5. Even otherwise as per terms of reference, the petitioner is claiming regularisation as Beldar w.e.f 1970 and as Painter from 1976 i.e., the dates of initial appointments on daily wage as Beldar and Painter respectively. Such a relief cannot be granted as the regularisation has to be in terms of scheme framed for this purpose on the basis of seniority and as and when regular post became available. This aspect has already been discussed in detail in the case of MCD v. Gauri Shankar, reported in 2000 Lab 1C 662.
6. This writ petition is therefore without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. No orders as to costs.