Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Haryana And Others vs Mohammad Farookh And Another on 30 April, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.836 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision : April 30, 2013
The State of Haryana and others .....Appellants
versus
Mohammad Farookh and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the appellants.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondents has been allowed and their services have been ordered to be regularized in terms of the State Government policy dated 1.10.2003.
The facts indeed are not in dispute. The private respondents were engaged as Daily Wagers in the Irrigation Department, Haryana, in July 1990 and 1.11.1992 respectively. Their services were terminated on 31.8.1998. They raised an industrial dispute which was answered in their favour by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court vide Awards dated 11.8.2004 (Annexures P-1 & P-2, respectively). The termination of their services was held to be violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as they were held to have worked for more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months prior to their wrongful retrenchment. The respondents were ordered to be reinstated with continuity of LPA No.836 of 2013 (O&M) [2] service though back wages were denied to them.
It is also not in dispute that the State Government issued a policy circular dated 1.10.2003 for regularization of services of daily wagers/contractual employees. The policy stipulated certain conditions including that the eligible employees should be in service as on 30.9.2003 and that they should have been engaged against sanctioned posts and must possess the requisite qualification.
Since the respondents were denied regularization after their reinstatement in terms of the above-stated policy-circular, they approached this Court and vide order under appeal, their claim has been accepted.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at some length and gone through the record.
It is true that the policy circular dated 1.10.2003 was later on withdrawn by the State Government on 9.5.2007 after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1. The fact remains that before withdrawal of the policy, hundreds of daily wagers/contractual employees were made regular under the said policy. The respondents were also in service before withdrawal of the above- stated policy and in view of the Labour Court's Awards which have attained finality, they shall be deemed to be in service on 30.9.2003. As regard to the qualifications, the learned Single Judge has found and rightly so that there are no rules/instructions prescribing any qualification for the post of Beldars. Similarly, the fact that the respondents were appointed in the years 1990 & 1992 and had rendered more than 8 and 6 years service, respectively, as daily wagers before their retrenchment, is sufficient enough to infer that they were appointed against regular work. That apart, it is not the case of the appellants that no daily wager/contractual employee LPA No.836 of 2013 (O&M) [3] engaged after the years 1990-92 was made regular.
No interference with the impugned order is thus, called for.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
$
April 30, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH)
Mohinder JUDGE