THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.2809 of 1997 Dated 18-01-2008 Between: Ch.Satyanarayana. ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.S.E.B. rep. By its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.2809 of 1997 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking regularization of the services of the petitioner. Petitioner also questions the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services and in not paying him salary on par with other employees. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on 12.07.1982. His services were terminated on 31.05.1984. He was re-inducted into service but his services were dispensed with again from 01.12.1984. On a dispute being raised, the Government referred the matter vide G.O.Rt.No.192, dated 20.11.1986. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.136 of 1986 dated 28.11.1986, directed reinstatement of the workman on the ground that his services had been terminated without complying with the requirements under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved thereby, the respondents had filed W.P.No.9723 of 1987 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 06.12.1989. Aggrieved thereby, W.A.No.260 of 1990 was filed which also came to be dismissed at the stage of admission on 12.06.1990. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that pursuant to the interim orders in this writ petition, the petitioner- workman was paid minimum wages which was periodically enhanced and that prior to the order dismissing the writ petition for default, he was paid Rs.100/- per day. The affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is silent as to whether there is a scheme of regularization in existence in the respondent-Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has also chosen not to file any counter affidavit. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. UmaDevi[1], no employee can claim a right of regularization merely because he was engaged as a daily wage employee. However, the situation would stand on a different footing if there is a scheme of regularization in existence in the respondent-Corporation. In any event, even in the absence of any scheme, the services of the petitioner-workman could not have been terminated without complying with the statutory conditions prescribed in Section 25-F of the Act. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, in case, there is any scheme for regularization. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision of the respondents in this regard shall be communicated to the petitioner. Needless to state that the petitioner, whose services had been continued pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of this Court, shall be continued in service and be paid minimum wages in accordance with law. It is made clear that in case the petitioner’s services are no longer required, this order shall not preclude the respondent-Corporation from terminating his services strictly in accordance with law. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner continued to remain in service even after the writ petition was dismissed for default, the respondents chose not to pay him even the minimum wages. Needless to state that, in case the petitioner was continued, he shall be entitled to the minimum wages as prescribed in law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________ 18-01-2008 Note:Furnish copy within one week Bo usd [1] 2006(4)SCC 1