CWP No.20778 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20778 of 2008 Date of decision 10 .12.2008 Dharambeer and another .....Appellants versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Yashdev Kaushik, Advocate. K. Kannan, J. 1. The issue of regularisation of services of daily rated workers in a country of large scale unemployment and the clamour for obtaining security of tenure cannot be under-estimated. The proposition of law that the Supreme Court has delivered in its verdict in Secretary, State of Keral versus Uma Devi in 2006 (5) SCC 1 that initial employment which is illegal or where the process of employment does not adhere to recruitment rules cannot be rendered aright by any length of service has not yet sunk amongst the teeming milieu of daily rated workers. 2. The first petitioner in this case claims that he had joined the service in PW Department on Daily wage basis on 19.1.1982 and the second petitioner claims that he had joined the service on 1.6.1974. It is a matter of admission in the writ petition that services of the first petitioner were terminated in August 1991 and the services of the second petitioner were terminated in July, 1993. The petitioner relies on certain policy considerations of the State Government that all temporary workers shall be CWP No.20778 of 2008 -2- regularised as justification for approaching the Court after nearly 17 years in the case of first petitioner and 25 years in the case of second petitioner. The petitioner does not contend anywhere that his initial appointment was as per recruitment rules or that there were any sanctioned post to which they were employed. The petitioners again have no reason to offer as to why, if their termination was illegal, they did not approach the Labour Court at any time soon after the termination of the services. The Uma Devi dispensation has made it beyond pale of controversy that the length of services is irrelevant consideration for purposes of regularization. Even that apart, the laches of the petitioner is far too much beyond our scale of discretion for interference under Article of 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners cannot have a remedy before this Court for the several insurmountable obstacles that they have in their way. 3. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) JUDGE ( K. KANNAN) JUDGE 10.12.2008. A. Kaundal