Reinstatement with continuity of service does not automatically confer a right to retrospective regularisation.

The Respondent was appointed as a Retainer Crew Driver with DTC on 02.03.1982 on daily wages; the governing service conditions contemplated absorption into the monthly-rated temporary establishment on the basis of merit, seniority, conduct, performance and availability of vacancies, and permitted dispensing with services without notice or reasons.

His services were dispensed with on 06.07.1983 following an alleged fatal accident.

In the ensuing industrial dispute, the Tribunal, by Award dated 01.03.1999 in I.D. No. 141/85, directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

DTC's challenge failed [W.P.(C) 9865/1999, dismissed 31.01.2001], and the Respondent was re-engaged as a daily-rated Retainer Crew Driver on 18.03.2002.

The Respondent raised a second dispute seeking regularisation as Driver w.e.f. 01.06.1982, which was referred for adjudication on 22.01.2004.

During pendency, he was placed on monthly rates w.e.f. 01.06.2004.

By the impugned Award dated 02.02.2005 in I.D. No. 28/04, the Tribunal granted regularisation w.e.f. 02.03.1982 with all consequential benefits, reasoning that continuity of service having been granted and juniors having been regularised, the Respondent could not be discriminated against.

This Court stayed the Award on 27.08.2006; the Respondent superannuated on 10.03.2015.

1. Whether the impugned Award dated 02.02.2005 suffers from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in directing regularisation w.e.f. 02.03.1982 solely on the basis of the earlier Award granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

3. Whether, independently of continuity of service, the Respondent established entitlement to be considered for regularisation along with his juniors under the governing service conditions.

The Court applied the circumscribed, supervisory nature of writ jurisdiction over labour awards, per Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, permitting interference only for jurisdictional error, findings based on no evidence, or error apparent on the face of the record.

reinstatement... restores the employee to the pre-termination status without elevation (Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324).

continuity of service, a legal fiction effacing the artificial break for limited purposes such as qualifying service and pension, which is not an independent source of substantive rights.

regularisation... is the conferment of substantive status against a sanctioned post in accordance with recruitment rules and Articles 14 and 16.

reinstatement with continuity does not ipso facto confer regularisation or consequential benefits absent express direction or independent legal entitlement (Allahabad Bank v. Prem Singh, 1996 (10) SCC 597; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, 2006 AIR SCW 5957; A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narsagoud, (2003) 2 SCC 212; A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul Kareem, (2007) 2 SCC 466).

constitutional bar on regularisation as an alternative mode of recruitment (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1).

the principle that long service or reinstatement creates no automatic right to regularisation (State of Rajasthan v. Dayalal, (2011) 2 SCC 429).

settled requirement that reasons constitute the "heartbeat" of every quasi-judicial determination.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the 1999 Award was confined to restoring the Respondent to his original status as a daily-rated Retainer Crew Driver with continuity of service for purposes recognised by law; it neither declared him a regular Driver nor directed retrospective regularisation.

The Tribunal therefore misdirected itself in law by treating the earlier Award as the foundation for a vested right to regularisation w.e.f. 02.03.1982.

The regularisation claim was a distinct cause of action requiring independent adjudication on the pleadings, evidence, applicable service regulations and treatment of similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal further erred by conflating "absorption" under Clause (6)—contingent on merit, seniority, conduct, performance and availability of vacancies—with "regularisation," which occupy distinct legal fields, and undertook no analysis of this distinction.

DTC relied solely on the vague affidavit of Shri K.D. Sobti without producing policy documents, seniority records or circulars, while the Respondent adduced no documentary proof—seniority lists, regularisation orders of juniors, or comparative particulars—to substantiate his foundational plea of parity.

Despite these deficiencies, the Tribunal granted retrospective regularisation without identifying supporting evidence, without findings on vacancies, comparative seniority, merit, conduct or performance, and without disclosing any reasoning process.

The cumulative failure to appreciate the absorption/regularisation distinction, to evaluate material evidence, and to record reasons rendered the Award an adjudication legally unsustainable and vitiated by error apparent on its face.

The matter was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the regularisation claim independently and on its own merits, in accordance with the applicable service conditions, governing policy, the evidence on record and any further evidence permitted in the interests of justice.

The Court expressly clarified that it had rendered no opinion on the merits of the Respondent's entitlement, keeping all rights and contentions on regularisation open.

Given the protracted pendency, the Tribunal was requested to endeavour disposal within three months. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.