Continuity of service requires consideration of regularization, even when the reinstatement award does not expressly order it.

The applicant was engaged as a casual labourer in 1984 and granted Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) status from 1 October 1989.

After his services were terminated in 2003 over a discrepancy concerning his date of birth, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service for retirement benefits.

The award attained finality after the respondents’ challenge before the Gujarat High Court was dismissed; the applicant was reinstated in 2013.

He later sought Regular Mazdoor (RM) status from the date his immediate junior or comparable employees were regularized, together with equivalent basic pay and consequential benefits.

The respondents opposed the claim, including on the grounds that the CGIT award did not grant regularization and that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was a necessary party.

Whether the CGIT’s direction for reinstatement with continuity of service, limited to retirement benefits, prevented the applicant from being considered for RM status.

Whether the respondents should consider the applicant’s claims for RM status and pay parity by reference to comparable employees, despite the respondents’ objections concerning responsibility for his service and the absence of DoT as a party.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the applicant’s OA.

The CGIT award, which became final after dismissal of the respondents’ challenge, directed reinstatement with continuity of service for retirement benefits; the Tribunal treated that direction as not, by itself, barring consideration of regularization.

The Tribunal also referred to State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad, (2014) 7 SCC (citation incomplete), observing that workers with decades of service should not be kept indefinitely in temporary or casual status where the work is perennial.

It further stated that prolonged continuation in casual or temporary status where work persists may amount to unfair labour practice and administrative apathy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had served continuously as a casual labourer and then as a TSM for more than two decades, and that similarly placed TSMs had received RM status.

It rejected the respondents’ interpretation that the CGIT award’s reference to continuity for retirement benefits precluded consideration of regularization: the award did not expressly bar such consideration, and its finality could not be used to deny the applicant’s claim without assessment.

It also concluded that the applicant’s case should be considered by the respondents, including BSNL in consultation with DoT, given the applicant’s continued service under BSNL and the involvement of the Telecom Department in comparable regularizations.

In light of the length of service and the principles cited, the Tribunal directed consideration—not automatic grant—of RM status and pay parity.

The respondents were directed to consider granting the applicant RM status from the date his immediate junior received regularization and to consider his claim for basic pay equivalent to contemporary employees from 31 August 2013, with applicable consequential benefits.

They were to communicate their decision preferably within 90 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.