S.S.Nijjar,J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed in the Haryana Tourism Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "The Corporation") as a Helper on daily wages in February, 1982. His services were terminated on 30.11.1988. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which culminated in award on 24.5.1993 (Annexure P-1). The Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was neither justified nor legal. He was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back-wages. The State of Haryana had formulated a policy for regularisation on 27.5.1993 (Annexure P-7). This policy is admittedly applicable to the respondent-Corporation.
(2.) The claim of the petitioner for regularisation was not considered under the aforesaid policy. He was, however, reinstated in service and allowed to continue on the job. On 5.1.1997, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with the allegation that he came on duty under the influence of liquor and that he behaved rudely with the staff member. The petitioner claims that the charge was totally false as he had always been teetotaler. Aggrieved by the attitude of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner filed CWP No.1023 of 1997 claiming the benefit of regularisation of service and for a direction to the respondents not to victimize him in the future. However, this writ petition was disposed of on 11.11.1997 with a direction to the respondent to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the showcause notice and to pass appropriate orders, thereon. It was further directed that in case the petitioner is exonerated or any other punishment is awarded to him, his case shall be considered for regularisation, in accordance with law within one month thereafter. On 8.12.1997, the respondent-Corporation again terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of termination by filing CWP No.1718 of 1998. Since the petitioner had approached this Court without availing the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court. In the meantime, certain criminal proceedings had also been initiated against the petitioner, on the same charge. The petitioner was in fact convicted under Section 294 r/w Section 510 of the IPC. On appeal, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Thereafter, the petitioner again gave a demand notice, seeking reinstatement with full back-wages. By award dated 5.12.2000, the order of termination was set aside by the Labour Court. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service. However, his back-wages was limited only to 30%. The award of the Labour Court was challenged by the respondent-Corporation in CWP No.5046 of 2001. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 4.2.2003 passed by a Single Bench of this Court and the award of the Labour Court was upheld .
(3.) Against the aforesaid judgment of the Single Bench, the respondent- Corporation filed LPA No.281 of 2003 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.9.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice on the respondent-Corporation seeking regularisation of service, on the basis that he had completed 5 years of continuous service on 31.3.1993. This claim of the petitioner was ignored by the respondent- Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an appropriate direction to the respondent-Corporation to regularise the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-Corporation has regularised the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.10.2003 by order dated 15.2.2005 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner, therefore, amended the writ petition and challenged the order dated 15.2.2005 (Annexure P-8) only to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to be regularised w.e.f. 31.3.1993.;