A.K.Sikari - (1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order No. F.24(1619)/95/Lab-32991-95 dated 27th October,1995 by which the "appropriate Government" has refused to refer the matter for adjudication stating that it was not a fit case for reference to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication. Reasons for refusal as staled in the said .order arc mentioned as under: "Shri Rattan Lal has been regularised on the post of Beldar w.e.f. 1.4.89 after obtaining his acceptanee. Hr does not fulfill the requirement of R... Rs. for the post of Driver."
(2.) The petitioner had raised the dispute with the allegation that he was employed with Respondent No. 2 on 1st June, 1982 and right from the date of initial appointment he was working as Driver. However, respondent regularised him in the post of Beldar w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. During this period he was treated and paid as daily rated Driver on muster roll. On 25th January, 1994 the demand notice was served upon the MCD/Respondent No. 2 demanding regularisation in the post of Driver with retrospective effect with all its consequential benefits. Thereafter statement of claim was filed before the conciliation officer on 18th February, 1994. Respondent No. 2 submitted its reply on 15th April,1994 in which it was, inter alia, mentioned that petitioner is class-lV passed and docs not fulfil the requisites of Recruitment Rules for the post of Driver. Accordingly, he was offered regular post of Beldar and on his acceptance he was regularised w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. as per policy under phased programme vide office order No. 98 (West District) dated 2nd April, 1991. This office order was issued only alter he gave his acceptance for the post of Beldar. A copy of his acceptance letter and a copy of office order of rcgularisation as well as Recruitment Rules for the post of Driver were also filed. The petitioner filed rejoinder to this in which aforesaid averments were not denied. It was simply slated that the petitioner had acquired the status of a permanent employee in the post of Driver alter completing 90 days of continuous employment as provided in the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act,1946. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure. Failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government and after considering documents filed and submissions of the parlies as well as report of the Conciliation Officer impugned order dated 27th October, 1995 was issued rejecting the reference.
(3.) In the writ petition filed by the petitioner the main emphasis is thai since petitioner was performing the duties of Driver, he had a right to be regularised as a Driver. The reference could not be refused once dispute was raised inasmuch as it was not appropriate on the part of the Government of N.C.t. of Delhi to assume the role of adjudicator and decide the dispute. It was submitted that the reasons given because of which the reference in rejected amounts to adjudication of the dispute by the Government itself, which is not permitted and this approach of the respondent No. 1 was contrary to law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. States of M.P. and Another AIR 1985 SC 860, Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v State of Bihar and Others AIR ]989 SC 1565, Guest Keen, Williams Pr. Ltd., Calcutta v PJ. Sterling and Others AIR 1959 SC 1279 and in the case of Rajasthan Stale Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Krishna Kant etc. JT 1995 (4) SC 348.;