Court Confirms Break in Service Disqualifies Employee from Regularisation Despite Industrial Tribunal's Reinstatement Order
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld a decision by the Industrial Tribunal that denied the regularisation of Shri Mohkam Singh, a daily wage worker with the Delhi Jal Board. The decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, confirms that Singh's break in service due to termination disqualifies him from being regularised, notwithstanding his subsequent reinstatement.
Shri Mohkam Singh, employed as a Baildar since May 1982, faced termination in January 1993. After being acquitted of criminal charges in 1995, he was reinstated in 2002 following a Labour Court's decision, albeit without continuity in service. Singh's plea for regularisation was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal in 2008, a decision that the High Court has now upheld.
The court noted that Singh's initial engagement was not against a sanctioned post, and the break in his service from 1993 to 1996 was detrimental to his claim for regularisation. The Tribunal had earlier determined that Singh's termination created a service gap, thus disqualifying him from regularisation under the employer's scheme.
Singh argued that other Baildars hired around the same time had been regularised, claiming discrimination. However, the court found that his termination in 1993 and the subsequent break in service until his reinstatement in 1996 justified the non-regularisation. Citing the Supreme Court's precedents, the court reiterated that without a sanctioned post, regularisation could not be granted.
The High Court's decision aligns with legal principles that public employment regularisation must adhere to sanctioned posts and continuity in service, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings. The court emphasized that the powers of industrial adjudicators do not extend to issuing regularisation directives where such conditions are unmet.
The judgment underscores the importance of procedural adherence in public employment and the limitations of judicial intervention in regularisation matters, particularly when service continuity is compromised.
Bottom Line:
Regularisation of service - Daily wager/muster roll employee not entitled to regularisation when initial engagement was not against a sanctioned post, and there existed a break in service as per the findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal.
Statutory provision(s): Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sections 10(1)(d), 12(5); Constitution of India, 1950 Article 14
Shri. Mohkam Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2876747
