IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5111 of 2008. Date of decision: 1.6.2010. Ram Charan Saini …..Petitioner. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the extent that respondent No. 1- corporation may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of judgement dated 3.5.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 5054/2008 (OA No. 761/98). 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was engaged as Conductor in respondent No. 1- corporation in the year 1975. His services were terminated in the year 1976. The petitioner raised industrial dispute and the learned Labour Court answered the reference vide award dated 1.4.1991. The petitioner was reinstated in service with a token compensation of Rs.2000/- as per award. It has been alleged that petitioner should have been given the same treatment as was given to other daily waged conductors who were Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… serving alongwith the petitioner and who were regularized after completion of 240 days of service. The service of the petitioner should have been regularized from the date from which he completed 240 days of service with notional pay fixation on the said date and actual pay scale with effect from the date the petitioner joined the respondent No.1- corporation after the award of the Labour court. It has been alleged that petitioner is entitled to revision of pay scale on the basis of fixation of pay as per Annexure P-2. 3. The reply has been filed by the respondents in which the stand of the respondents is that petitioner was engaged as conductor in respondent No. 1 – corporation on daily wage basis w.e.f. 31.1.1976, his services were dispensed with vide order dated 16.12.1976. The fact of raising industrial dispute by the petitioner and the award passed by the Labour Court on 1.4.1991 has not been denied. It has been alleged that in compliance to award dated 1.4.1991, the petitioner was reinstated by the respondents w.e.f. 7.2.1995. The petitioner even after his reinstatement did not improve his work and conduct as is evident from the history sheet Annexure R-1. The petitioner was, however, regularized w.e.f. 20.3.1998. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner for regularization is covered by judgement dated 3.5.2010 passed in CWP(T) No. 5054/2008 (OA No. 761/98). This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner for regularization is covered by judgement dated 3.5.2010 has not been denied by the learned …3… counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed in terms of directions given in CWP(T) No. 5054/2008 (OA No. 761/98) decided on 3.5.2010. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services from the date he is entitled to in accordance with the policy/ scheme of the Corporation prevailing at the relevant time. No costs. June 1, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.