Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The quarrel is not about his regularisation since he is already regularised by the petitioner itself w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. The question to be determined is as to whether it can be treated that he is regularly appointed from the date of his initial employment i.e. 25th October, 1983. My answer to this question is in the negative. It may be stated that even if it is presumed that keeping an employee on casual/daily/muster roll for a long period amounted to unfair labour practice and also denying the said employee wages which are given to the regular workman, this is totally a different aspect. In fact in this award itself, applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, workman is given the wages which are paid to regular employees even from the date prior to his regularisation by the management i.e. for the period from 25th October, 1983 to 1st April, 1989. Since notice in this petition was issued on limited aspect and the amount already stands paid to the workman, therefore I am not commenting on this aspects. Fact remains that respondent/workmen has been paid same wages as are paid to regular workman. However, the controversy is about the regularisation of the workman from the date of this initial appointment. If the reasoning of the IT is accepted and the relief granted by the IT is to be sustained, the effect of that would be : (a) presumption that there was a permanent post as on 25th October, 1983; (b) presumption that respondent No. 1/workman applied for the said post and was duly selected by a property constituted Selection Committee in accordance with recruitment rules.