VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition has approached this Court for regularisation of his services from the date of award passed by the Labour Court on 24.02.2003.
(2.) Briefly the facts in the case are that services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.12.1989. The petitioner approached Labour Court and the Labour Court vide order dated 24.02.2003 while answering the reference in favour of petitioner has held that the termination of the services of the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.1989 is illegal and the petitioner was held to be in continuous service of respondent from the date of termination, but the back wages for the same period were denied. The respondent i.e. State has challenged this order of Labour Court by way of filing a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7251/2003 before this Court. This writ petition was also dismissed on 31.01.2005. Against the dismissal of this writ petition, the State Government filed a special appeal being D.B. Special Appeal No. 267/2005 the same was also dismissed upholding the award of Labour Court. The Division Bench observed as under:- "From these facts, it could be safely inferred that the respondent workman had not left the services of the appellant voluntarily as he had moved the court of District Judge for redressal of his grievance promptly in the year 1989 itself when he was alleged to have voluntarily left the services. Under the circumstance, it is not open for the appellant State to urge that he had left the services voluntarily for which no inquiry was fit to be initiated. The appellant, having failed to establish that the respondent workman had left the service voluntarily, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the award of the Labour Court by which he was granted reinstatement without back wages."
(3.) In pursuance of the orders passed by Labour Court and by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated by order dated 24.08.2007 as a daily wager and since then the petitioner is in continuous service of the respondent. The petitioner is working as Class-IV in the respondent Department. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the persons who are similarly situated to the petitioner their services had been regularized.;