* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 9852/2009 % Date of Decision: 07 July, 2009 # New Delhi Municipal Corporation ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. P.C. Sen, Advocate. Versus $ Shri Rambir .....Respondent ^ Through: Nemo. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) CM No. 8068/2009 (Exemption) in WP(C) No.9852/2009 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) No.9852/2009 This writ petition filed by the management is directed against an award dated 25.07.2008 passed by Mr. I.S. Mehta, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. I, Delhi directing regularization of the workman (respondent herein) w.e.f. 01.04.1997 i.e. the date when persons junior to him were regularized by the petitioner in terms of its policy for regularization of daily wagers. 2 The respondent was appointed as Mali-Beldar in the Horticulture Department of the NDMC (petitioner herein) on 25.07.1985. He was appointed as a daily wager. His services were terminated w.e.f. W.P.(C) No.9852/2009 Page 1 of 3 14.12.1988 without assigning any reason. The termination was challenged by the respondent (workman) by raising an industrial dispute and vide award dated 02.09.1999 in ID No. 116/1990, the termination of the workman was held illegal and unjustified and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages which become enforceable w.e.f. 02.12.1999. The claim of the workman for regularization w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.07.1985 was declined by the Tribunal below but since persons junior to the respondent appointed on the same date along with the respondent were regularized in service w.e.f. 01.04.1997 in terms of policy formulated by the NDMC, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to regularize the workman also w.e.f. 01.04.1997 with all consequential benefits. 3 Mr. Sen learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the respondent was not entitled for regularization as he had not worked continuously with the petitioner and for that reason, according to him, he did not fit into the policy of the petitioner for regularization of daily wager. This argument urged by Mr. Sen is of no legal consequence because the regularization of the respondent has been ordered by the Tribunal below on a finding of fact recorded in the impugned award that persons junior/counterparts to the respondent appointed along with the respondent on daily wages on the same day have already been regularized by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1997. This finding of fact contained in the impugned award has nowhere been attacked in the grounds of challenge contained in the present writ petition. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned award which may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. W.P.(C) No.9852/2009 Page 2 of 3 4 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. CM No. 8069/2009 (for stay) in WP(C) No.9852/2009 5 Since the main writ petition has been dismissed in limine, the application for stay being CM No. 8069/2009 is rendered infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly. July 07, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL a [JUDGE] W.P.(C) No.9852/2009 Page 3 of 3