Reinstatement does not automatically entitle daily wagers to regularization without meeting prescribed departmental policy criteria.

The applicant was appointed as a Retainer Crew Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) on September 20, 1980

His services were terminated on June 10, 1988, following a brief period of absence due to illness, without any show cause notice or inquiry

The applicant raised an industrial dispute, resulting in a Labour Court award dated September 20, 2001, which declared the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with 70% back wages and consequential benefits

This award attained finality after the respondent’s challenges were dismissed by the Delhi High Court (2013) and the Supreme Court (2013)

The applicant was reinstated on February 23, 2004

However, the respondents issued an order on March 19, 2014, treating the applicant as a daily wager

The applicant retired on November 30, 2014, and subsequently filed this OA seeking treatment as a confirmed employee, re-fixation of salary, ACP/MACP benefits, and post-retirement benefits including pension

1. Whether the applicant, upon reinstatement via a Labour Court award, is entitled to be treated as a confirmed employee and receive regular pay scales, ACP/MACP, and pensionary benefits

2. Whether the respondent's order treating the applicant as a daily wager is legally sustainable in light of the directed "consequential benefits" in the Labour Court award

The court considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding the tribunal's jurisdiction

It referenced the legal principle established in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre (Civil Appeal No. 391 of 2008), which holds that reinstatement restores an employee to the same capacity/status held prior to removal, and does not automatically confer regularization unless specific policy conditions are met

The court also noted the internal DTC policy requiring a specific number of attendance days for the regularization of daily wage drivers

The applicant contended that the Labour Court’s direction for reinstatement with "consequential benefits" implicitly required his treatment as a regular employee from the date of termination

Conversely, the respondents argued that the applicant’s status was that of a daily wager at the time of termination, and reinstatement merely restored that status

They further asserted that the applicant failed to meet the attendance criteria required for regularization under DTC policy, despite five reviews of his case

The Tribunal observed that the specific DTC policy was not placed on record and the applicant had not initially challenged the denial based on that policy

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the status claim, the Tribunal determined that the applicant should be permitted to formally agitate his case through administrative channels

It granted the applicant liberty to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation within fifteen days, specifically citing the respondent's regularization policy

The respondents were directed to consider said representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order, applying appropriate rules and regulations, within four weeks of receipt

No order as to costs was made