In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an award dated 26-03-2004 by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to regularization in the regular pay scale of Assistant Salesman from his initial date of appointment, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan affirmed the impugned award while dismissing the petition.
The petitioner joined the Telangana State Handloom Weavers Housing Society Co-op. Ltd. (respondent), as a daily rated/muster roll employee on 13-06-1985. Following termination on 02-03-1987, the Labour Court set it aside on 21-10-1995, ordering reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The respondent management preferred a writ petition but withdrew it on 06-08-1996 after a settlement, reinstating the petitioner w.e.f. 28.08.1996 with 50% back wages.
Thereafter, the petitioner demanded regularization, and the dispute was referred to the Tribunal. It was found that the petitioner was a daily wage worker and was taken back in that same capacity. It was also found that no regular vacancy of Assistant Salesman existed, and that the petitioner’s routine duties such as cleaning and running errands were altogether different from a regular Assistant Salesman who handled stock and accounts. It was ultimately found that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
The Court noted that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is limited and supervisory rather than appellate. Upon perusing the impugned order, the Court found that the Tribunal had rightly decided the matter against the petitioner on the finding that there were no regular vacancies for the post of Assistant Salesman. The Court referred to Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 INSC 105, noting that a daily wager can only be absorbed if there is an availability of duly sanctioned posts.
The Court stated that the petitioner could not show he was appointed against a vacant post, and his duties lacked accounting responsibilities. The petitioner also withdrew an application seeking to bring additional documents regarding regularized juniors. Thus, the Court found no reason to interfere with the plausible view of the Tribunal and dismissed the petition.
