R.S.A.No. 1773 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1773 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2011 State of Haryana and others ......Appellants Versus Rohtash and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Manish Bansal, Addl.A.G.Haryana Mr.B.S.Mittal, Advocate for respondents **** SABINA, J. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that their services be reguralised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 when they had completed two years of regular service. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were employees of Haryana Roadways, Sirsa. The plaintiffs had been appointed by defendant No.3 vide order dated 15.12.1993 on contractual basis. Services of the plaintiffs were terminated on 31.8.1995 by defendant No.3. Plaintiffs raised an industrial dispute and vide award dated 15.9.1999, plaintiffs were ordered to be re- R.S.A.No. 1773 of 2010 (O&M) 2 instated in service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. Writ petition filed by the defendants against the said award was dismissed by this Court on 5.7.2000. Plaintiffs were allowed to join duty vide order dated 12.10.2000. Plaintiff No.1 had been regularised w.e.f. 12.12.1997 and plaintiff No.2 had been regularised w.e.f. 8.12.1997. Plaintiff No.3 was regularised w.e.f. 31.12.1997. Order in this regard was passed on 20.10.2004. It was further ordered that the arrears will be paid to the plaintiffs w.e.f. 4.8.2003. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to be regularised w.e.f. 1.1.1996 after they had completed two years of service in terms of instructions issued by defendant No.2. Defendants in their written statement averred that as per notification dated 18.3.2004, the plaintiffs were not entitled for regularisation of their services w.e.f.1.1.1996. The instructions dated 23.3.1998 were not applicable to the case of the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be regularised in the service w.e.f. 1.1.1996? OPP. 2. Whether the impugned orders passed by defendant No.3 dated 4.6.2004, 20.5.2002, 11.6.2004 and 20.10.2004 are wrong, illegal, against law and facts and the same are liable to be modified ? OPP 3. If issue Nos.1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiffs R.S.A.No. 1773 of 2010 (O&M) 3 are entitled to decree for declaration and relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for OPP 4. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2008. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, admittedly, the services of the plaintiffs were terminated on 31.8.1995. Thereafter, plaintiffs raised an industrial dispute and they were ordered to be re-instated in service with full back wages and other consequential relief by the Labour Court vide award dated 15.9.1999. The writ petition filed by the defendants was dismissed by this Court and thus, the award passed by the Labour Court was upheld. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs, who were in service since 15.12.1993 were entitled to be regularised in service w.e.f. 1.1.1996. On the said date, plaintiffs had R.S.A.No. 1773 of 2010 (O&M) 4 completed two years of service. Since the plaintiffs had been reinstated by the Labour Court, they were to be treated in service during the period of termination. The fact that the plaintiffs had raised industrial dispute after their termination and had been re- instated by the Labour Court was not denied by the defendants. In these circumstances, the fact that the award of the Labour Court was not placed on record loses its significance. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 19, 2011 anita