Regularization cannot be ordered absent a sanctioned post, prescribed eligibility, and recruitment procedure.

Ramji Lal joined DESU as a daily-wage Mason, Grade I, on 24 March 1975. After his termination was set aside in an earlier industrial dispute, he was reinstated; his services were later regularized as a Mazdoor from 12 June 1986, rather than as a Mason, Grade I.

The Industrial Tribunal subsequently directed his regularization as Mason, Grade I from 25 March 1977, with corresponding pay and arrears.

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. challenged that award by writ petition. The Single Judge set it aside, and Ramji Lal appealed.

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in directing Ramji Lal’s regularization as Mason, Grade I when the post was subject to direct recruitment and he lacked the prescribed qualifications.

2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s power to mould relief permitted regularization despite the applicable recruitment requirements.

Under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, appointment to the Mason post was by direct recruitment and required an ITI certificate in Masonry or equivalent qualification, together with one year’s relevant experience.

The Court applied the principle that regularization is not a mode of appointment and cannot override applicable recruitment rules; the claim must satisfy the requirements of a sanctioned post, a vacancy, prescribed selection procedure, and eligibility.

Industrial adjudicators’ power to mould relief, including the principles discussed in Western India Automobile Association, Bharat Bank Ltd., Bidi, Bidi Leaves and Co-operative Bank, does not authorize appointment contrary to recruitment rules or without prescribed eligibility.

Umadevi and National Union Waterfront Workers were considered but did not support regularization where eligibility was absent.

The Court held S.M. Nilajkar, concerning project-based termination and Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, irrelevant to the issue of eligibility for regularization.

The Court found that Ramji Lal did not possess either prescribed qualification and had not applied for an advertised vacancy through the required procedure.

His daily-wage engagement and performance of Mason duties established only that he had been engaged, not that he had entered the regular cadre through the prescribed recruitment process.

He also produced no material showing a vacancy or that he had been considered through open competition.

The Tribunal’s remedial powers could not cure those deficiencies. His acceptance of regularization as a Mazdoor and delay in asserting the claim further weighed against the retrospective relief sought.

Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge’s judgment, it dismissed the appeal without an order as to costs.