S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) The petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the Forest Department in the year 1982. In the year 1989 his services were terminated by verbal order. He raised an industrial dispute and challenged his termination before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide its award dated 5.6.1995, copy Annexure P/1, allowed the prayer of the petitioner and state side the termination and ordered him to be reinstated forthwith, with full back wages with benefit of continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
(2.) On 11.5.1994, the Government of Haryana issued notification for regularisation of daily wage employees who had completed 5 years of service on 31.3.1993. The petitioner has reproduced the same in paragraph No. 6 of this petition, which is as under:- "2. Daily rate employees:- (i). The Government had issued instructions dated 27th May, 1993, for regularisation of services of all the work-charge, casual and daily wagers employees who had completed 5 years services on 31st March, 1993. In the reference of these instructions, the regularised employees were entitled to the lowest group D scales of pay and all other allowances and the benefits available to regular Government employees...." The contention of the petitioner is that he should be given the benefit of the said policy. Respondent No. 3 has filed its written statement stating that the petitioner was a daily paid labourer engaged just as stop--gap arrangement of seasonal work of green forestry and on its completion, he was retrenched but later on he was adjusted as daily wager in compliance with the award of the Labour Court. It is further contended that as he has not completed five years service as on 31.1.996, he was not entitled for regularisation.
(3.) Petitioner cannot be said to have not completed 5 years service on 31.1.1996. The date mentioned in the Government instructions is 31.3.1993 and not 31.1.1996 as contended by the respondents. However, even consider the date of 31.3,1993, the petitioner cannot be said to have not completed five years as he joined services in the year 1982 though when the instruction was issued on 27.5.1993, the petitioner was out of job. The award of the Labour Court gave him relief of continuity of service and he is deemed to be in job on that date and his termination has been wiped out by the award of the Labour Court. This being the position, the petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of the instructions.;