C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991 Date of decision: 7.2.2011 Munshi Ram and others ….Petitioners Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Jaswant Singh, J By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, petitioners-workmen, who are 41 in number, have impugned the award dated 6.9.1990 (P.4) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “the ld. Tribunal”) whereby their claim for retrospective regularization has been rejected. Petitioners-workmen while working in the Verka Workshop of the Punjab State Electricity Board-respondents raised an industrial dispute and the Government of Punjab while exercising powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act of 1947) vide Notification dated 11.11.1988 made a reference, which reads as under: “Whether the services of the workmen whose names are mentioned in Annexure A should be regularised w.e.f the date mentioned against each workman? If so, to what relief they are entitled to?” C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991 #2# The petitioner-workmen submitted in their demand notice dated 14.8.1986 (P.1) that they were working in the Verka Workshop, Batala Road, Amritsar continuously for several years and their particulars are given in Annexure-A annexed with the demand notice, however, they are being described as work charged employees to circumvent their lawful claim. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioners were regularized with effect from the dates mentioned in column No.6 of Annexure-A but no benefit of their continuous long service has been granted. Therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal, unjust and unconstitutional. In these circumstances, the petitioners claimed that they should be granted the benefit of continuous service with effect from their initial appointment including bonus, grade increments, promotion and pension etc. In support of their claim, the petitioners filed affidavit dated 16.9.1989 (P.2) of one of the workmen namely, Basant Ram son of Sh. Kirpa Ram and reiterated the claim raised in the demand notice. On the other hand, respondents refuted the claim of the petitioners-workmen by filing an affidavit (P.3) of Engineer N.S. Samra, Executive Engineer, Central Workshop, PSEB Verka. On the pleadings of both the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: “i) Whether the services of the workmen named in Annexure A are entitled to be regularised? If so, with what details? ii) Relief.” After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the services of all the workmen have been regularized vide order dated 29.2.1984 and therefore, no benefit of retrospective regularization on completion of five years service can be granted to the C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991 #3# petitioners and as such rejected their claim vide the impugned award dated 6.9.1990. Hence the present petition. At the time of hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners whereas Sh. S.S. Siao, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the claim of the petitioners has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal. This is the conceded position as observed by learned Tribunal under Issue No.1 that services of all the petitioners have been regularized vide order dated 29.2.1984. It has come in evidence of respondents in the statement of MW1 that previously the numbers of sanctioned regular posts were not sufficient and therefore, the petitioners along with others were employed on work charged basis and when the regular posts were increased, the services of the petitioners along with others were regularized vide order dated 29.2.1984 and all the petitioners stand regularized. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that services of all the petitioners have been regularized way back in 1984 and in view of the law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Secretary, State of Karnatka v. Smt Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, no interference in the impugned award dated 6.9.1990 (P.4) while declining the claim of the petitioners for retrospective regularization under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is warranted. Dismissed. February 07, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE