Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2818 of 1999 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Presiding Officer And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.,S.Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Tewari,Vinod Swarup Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the award dated 23rd December, 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (4) Agra.
The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this petition for writ is that the Appropriate Government under a notification dated 10th March, 1992 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in the terms "whether the workman Sri Dhyan Singh, S/o Sri Budha Singh is entitled to be regularized in service by his employer? If yes, then from which date and with other particulars?”
The statement of claim was filed by the workman with specific assertion that he entered in service of the employer on 01st January, 1985 and since then, he was working continuously on the post aforesaid. The work discharged by him, is of permanent nature and, therefore, no reason exists for not regularizing his service. The claim filed by the workman was not contested by the employer, thus the ex-parte award was passed, arriving at a conclusion that the workman is entitled for regularization in service with effect from 3rd July, 1989.
It is brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of petition for writ, the respondent-workman died and he has been substituted by his legal representatives under an order dated 06th August, 2013.
None is present on behalf of the workman.
While pressing this petition for writ, it is stated that an application was filed by the present petitioner to set aside the ex-parte award dated 23rd December, 1994, but that came to be rejected and subsequent thereto, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Section 6 (h) (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the application aforesaid, a recovery certificate has also been issued. According to employer, the petitioner was working on work-charge basis and, therefore, no occasion was there to pass an order for regularization in service.
I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is not in dispute that one post of Gangman was sanctioned with the employer in its regular cadre. The respondent-workman was recruited and working against that post only, as such, he can be treated as a casual or work-charge employee. It is not in dispute that as 'Gangman' he was recruited by usual process.
In view of the above, the award impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Rameez
.
(Govind Mathur, C.J.)