Daily Wage Worker Cannot Claim Service Regularization and Terminal Benefits Without Enforcing Reinstatement Award</p>

The appellant was engaged as a casual daily-wage laborer (NMR) by the Highways and Rural Works Department between 1982 and 1990 at a wage of Rs. 8/- per day.

His engagement ceased in 1990 due to lack of sanction for NMR posts, after which he allegedly worked in the private sector.

He challenged his termination before the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai (I.D. No. 1186/1991), which awarded reinstatement without backwages on 14.07.1999.

A subsequent writ appeal by the Department against this award was dismissed in 2011.

Instead of executing the award, the appellant filed a writ petition in 2021 seeking regularization of service from 1980 to 2010, fixation of salary, promotions, and pensionary benefits.

The Writ Court dismissed the petition on 29.01.2024, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus for regularization and terminal benefits can be granted when the petitioner failed to execute a Labour Court award for reinstatement for over a decade

2. Whether the claim for regularization was maintainable given the nature of the appellant's initial appointment and the lapse of time

The Court applied the Service Rules governing regular appointments in government departments and the principle of "Laches and Stale Claims".

It recognized that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a party must take active steps to enforce or execute an award.

Daily-wage employees do not have an automatic right to regularization unless they meet specific statutory or scheme-based criteria, and such claims cannot be entertained after an inordinate delay.

The Court observed that the appellant’s prayer was "misconceived" as it sought benefits far beyond the scope of the original Labour Court award.

The Court emphasized that the appellant was never a regular employee but merely a daily-wager whose engagement ended in 1989.

Although the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement in 1999 (confirmed in 2011), the appellant failed to initiate execution proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Instead, he approached the High Court in 2021—thirty years after the dispute arose—making the claim "stale" and "contrary to the Service Rules".

The Court concluded that the appellant could not bypass the lack of execution of the reinstatement award by seeking a writ for regularization and pension for a period during which he never actually served the Department.

It held that the appellant was not entitled to regularization or terminal benefits as he was never a regular employee and had slept on his rights by failing to execute the 1999 Labour Court award.

No costs were ordered.