TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Tribunal') in adjudication case No. 168 of 1980. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent Nos.2 3 were appointed as Chowkidars as muster roll employees on daily wage basis in the Fatehpur Sub-station on 1.6.1977. By order dated 17.1.1979, the appellant-Corporation decided that no one will be engaged as casual worker. Accordingly services of respondent Nos.2 3 and others were terminated as the construction work at Fatehpur Sub-station was over. Respondent Nos.2 3 disputed their termination on the ground that they were not paid the retrenchment compensation. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal in Adjudication Case No. 168 of 1980. The Tribunal held that the termination was improper as they had co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 was again terminated under Section 6N of the U.P. Act as there was no suitable work to be offered. While another industrial dispute i.e. Adjudication Case No. 1 of 1985 was raised. In the said case it was held that termination was illegal but it was also held that he was not a regular employee. Direction was, however, given to consider the possibility of absorbing him on the job of regular nature. In the Adjudication Case No. 50 of 1985 it was held that respondent No. 2 worked as a casual Chowkidar as against the claim that he was working as Pump Operator cum Electrician. The claim made in that regard was negated by the Tribunal. The Award was not challenged by respondent No. 2. Appellants filed writ petition No. 17727 of 1985 inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isc. Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') praying for quashing the proceedings. Respondent No. 2 was asked on 23.7.1992 to report for duty as a daily wages Chowkidar. Similar directions were given on 4.1.1993. The Criminal Misc. Application was allowed by the High Court. Respondent No. 2 was asked to join the duties which he did not do. The High Court dismissed the CMWP No. 4324 of 1991 on the ground that respondent No. 2 was entitled to regularization. 4. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the order of the High Court is clearly untenable being cryptic. In any event in view of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision in Uma Devi's case (supra) was not rendered is really of no consequence. There cannot be a case for regularization without there being employee-employer relationship. As noted above the concept of regularization is clearly linked with Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if in a case the fact situation is covered by what is stated in para 45 of the Uma Devi's case (supra), the Industrial Adjudicator can modify the relief, but that does not dilute the observations made by this Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) about the regularization. 7. On facts it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that respondent No. 2 himself admitted that he never worked as a Pump Operator, but was engaged as daily labourer on d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
