Karanvir Singh vs. Dy. General Manager - (High Court of Delhi) (23 Dec 2022)
Nobody can claim regularization as a matter of right de hors the regularization policy
The present petition has been preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against the award passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi. Vide the impugned award, the learned Labour Court denied relief to the Petitioner since he failed to prove that he was appointed as a Messenger-cum-Water boy through a regular process. Also, learned Labour Court held that, the Petitioner was unable to establish that he moved an application for absorption in the service in pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement, therefore, is not entitled to regularisation of service.
The question that falls for the consideration of present Court is whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in not regularizing the services of Karanvir Singh, Messenger-cum-Water Boy w.e.f 1983 is just, fair and legal.
In the present case, it is the case of the Petitioner that his service was terminated w.e.f 30th November, 1997. However, the term of reference was confined to his regularization in service w.e.f 1983. There is no reference qua his alleged illegal termination. No additional issue was framed by the learned Labour Court. The Petitioner neither challenged the term of reference nor pressed for framing additional issues. Since the learned Labour Court conducted the enquiry limited to the term of reference, i.e, the issue of regularization, hence this Court is also restricting the examination limited to the term of reference, i.e, regularization of the petitioner as a Messenger-cum-Water Boy w.e.f 1983.
The law regarding the regularisation of an employee is no more res integra. As per the settled proposition of law, the regularization can be done only as per the regularization policy declared by the Government, and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right de hors the regularization policy.
In view of the fact that the Petitioner never applied for the regularisation under the Scheme of the respondent's Bank, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation. The impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Regularisation is not a matter of right and therefore this Court cannot direct the respondent Bank to regularize the services of petitioner. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award while exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.
Tags : SCHEME REGULARIZATION ELIGIBILITY