CWP No.15682 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15682 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.09.2011 State of Punjab ..... Petitioner Versus President, Karamchari Welfare Union-cum-Consumer Welfare Association and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the petitioner. Mr.Somesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The State of Punjab, prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing award dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab Chandigarh and letter No.2501, dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure P-7), issued by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I, and Labour and Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, seeking to enforce the award. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ganesh Pal, a member of respondent No.1, was engaged as Fee Inspector-cum-Beldar for collection of toll tax at toll barriers. After the toll tax barriers were abolished on 19.02.1995 and 31.01.1998, the post of Fee Inspector was also abolished. Taking a sympathetic view, Ganesh Pal, and other similarly situated workmen were adjusted as Beldars against vacant posts in various offices of the Punjab PWD(B&R) Branch. Ganesh Pal CWP No.15682 of 2009 -2- was adjusted in the petitioner department. The service of Ganesh Pal was regularised in accordance with his seniority on 23.01.2001, w.e.f 23.01.2003. The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, directing regularisation of Ganesh Pal's services w.e.f. 01.12.1994 is illegal and void, as regularisation was ordered in accordance with seniority. It is further prayed that as the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court is illegal and void, the notice issued by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I, and Labour and Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,72,999/- should be set aside. Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that as held by the Labour Court, services of the workman have to be regularised from 01.12.1994 at par with the order of regularisation passed with respect to similar workmen who though absent from duty for 1900 days were regularised from 01.12.1994. Ganesh Pal, was absent from duty for only 487 days, but his service was regularised from 23.01.2001, without assigning any reason. It is further submitted that absence was not intentional as it falls between the abolition of post of Fee Inspector and the adjustment of Ganesh Pal in the petitioner-department. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and the letter and find no reason whether in fact or in law to interfere with the award. Ganesh Pal, member of respondent No.1, raised an industrial dispute, claiming regularisation of his service from 01.12.1994 instead of from 23.01.2001, in accordance with policy dated 28.05.1998. The CWP No.15682 of 2009 -3- notification dated 28.05.1998 specifically states that workmen at Sr. Nos.166, 167, 171 to 174, 177, 181 and 183 to 191 do not fulfill the conditions for regularisation of their services if their absence period is deducted. Vide communication dated 30.11.1998, the Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R) Branch, Patiala, recommended that if the absence period of work-charge employees Mangal Ram and Desh Raj, at Sr.Nos.166 and 181, is reduced, then these employees would complete 10 years of service as on 30.11.1994. The services of these workmen were regularised on 23.09.1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1992 whereas the services of Bodh Raj were regularised w.e.f. 01.12.1994 by treating the period of absence as period spent on duty. The petitioner's service was however regularised from 23.01.2001, without including the period of absence. The Labour Court has after considering the entire controversy, held as follows: - “8. It is not disputed that the services of the workman has been regularised w.e.f. 26.07.2001 in the scale of 2620-4140. Now, question for determination is, whether his services are required to be regularised with effect from 1.12.1994 like other coworkers? The issuance of policy decision by the Punjab Govt. for regularization of services of work charge employees, vide Memo No.3/15/95-1-ES(3)/2756 dated 28.5.1998 has also not been disputed, vide which work charge/daily wager employees have been made regular, the copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.W/3. In his cross examination, the workman Ganesh Pal as WW-1 has stated that he joined the respondent management w.e.f. 2.8.83 as barrier man on daily wage basis and has also admitted that he remained absent for 487 days between the period from 1.8.1983 to 30.11.1994. Shri Dalbir Singh MW-1, the witness of the management has admitted in his cross examination that the employees mentioned at page 9 of Ex. W/3, whose services have been regularised w.e.f. 1.12.1994, are having more than CWP No.15682 of 2009 -4- 1900 absent days. Thus, the contention of the respondent that the services of the workman could not be regularised w.e.f. 1.12.1994 because he was having 487 absent days during his service from 2.8.83 to 1.12.94 is neither tenable nor justified. I, therefore, hold that the services of the workman Ganesh Pal are required to be regularised w.e.f. 1.12.1994, alike others in the pay sale attached to the post of regular barrierman/Beldar with all consequential benefits. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the workman and against the respondent.” It is, therefore, apparent that the workman has not been granted parity viz.a.viz. other employees who were extended a similar benefit. The Government cannot adopt a different criteria for different workmen and condone the period of absence in the case of other employees/workmen while denying this benefit to Ganesh Pal. The Labour Court, has therefore, rightly held that services of Ganesh Pal have to be regularised from 01.12.1994. As regards the letter issued by the Assistant Collector, Grade-I, and Labour and Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur, to enforce the award, suffice it to say that no argument has been addressed to impugn its correctness. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the impugned award and letter/order do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed. 15.09.2011 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.15682 of 2009 -5-