Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Shiv Ram & Ors. on 3 February, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd February, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 2304/2006
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha & Mr. A.S. Singh,
Advocates.
Versus
SHIV RAM & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the award dated 7th October, 2004 of the
Labour Court directing the petitioner to regularize the employment of the
two respondents/workmen, employed with the petitioner on temporary
basis, with effect from the date of their initial employment in the year
1986. The petition came up before this Court first on 20 th February, 2006
when the writ petition was dismissed so far as the direction to regularize
the workmen w.e.f. 1986 and payment of their full arrears w.e.f. 4 th March,
1996 was concerned. Notice was issued limited to the point of payment of
arrears from 1986 till 4 th March, 1996 when the workmen had
cleared/qualified the departmental test held for regularization of muster
roll/temporary employees.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 was regularized w.e.f.
21st May, 1996 on clearing the departmental test and the respondent no.2
qualified the departmental test on 4th March, 1996 but notwithstanding the
same his services were not regularized. The respondent no.1 has chosen
not to contest the petition. The respondent no.2 has filed a counter affidavit
but in which nothing qua the aspect on which notice was issued has been
stated.
3. The arguing counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to appear and
adjournment is sought on his behalf. A perusal of the order sheet shows
that the counsel for the petitioner has sought adjournments for arguments
on 10th March, 2008, 29th September, 2008, 1st April, 2009, 9th September,
2009, 28th January, 2010, 15th April, 2010 and 24th September, 2010.
Rather the counsel for the respondent no.2 had also not been appearing for
the last several dates and the petitioner was also directed to file a synopsis
of submissions but the same has also not been filed. In the circumstances
the request for adjournment is declined. The counsel for the respondent
no.2 has been heard.
4. The award under challenge does not deal with the aspect as to how
the respondents/workmen could have been regularized without clearing the
departmental test. Records shows that the respondents/workmen raised the
dispute as to their regularization also only in the year 1997 i.e. after they
had cleared the departmental test and not prior thereto, even though
working since the years 1986.
3. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents workmen
would not be entitled to arrears on the basis of regularization till the date of
clearing the departmental test. The award impugned in the petition is
modified to the aforesaid extent.
The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 03, 2011
'PP'
