Reinstatement without continuity of service under an unchallenged award constitutes a break in service precluding regularization.

The appellant was engaged as a daily-wage Baildar by the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking (predecessor to the respondent) on 08.05.1982

His services were terminated on 09.01.1993 following his arrest in a criminal case under Sections 307/34 of the IPC

Following his acquittal in 1995, he sought reinstatement, which was initially refused

In a 1997 industrial dispute (ID No. 753/1997), the Labour Court, by an award dated 03.01.2002, held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages, but specifically effective from 17.07.1996

The appellant accepted this award without challenge.

Subsequently, he raised a second industrial dispute seeking regularization of service from 01.04.1990

The Industrial Tribunal, by award dated 19.09.2008, rejected the claim citing a break in service and the nature of the initial appointment

The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging the 2008 award on 31.05.2024, leading to this intra-court appeal

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to regularization on the post of Baildar w.e.f. 01.04.1990 despite the specified date of reinstatement in the previous award

2. Whether the period between termination (1993) and the directed date of reinstatement (1996) constituted a "break in service" that disentitled the appellant from the benefits of the respondent’s regularization scheme

The Court applied the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Sections 10 and 12 regarding references and adjudication

It relied on the principles of regularization in public employment established in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), noting that appointments de-hors recruitment rules generally do not confer a right to regularization

The Court further referenced ONGC v. Krishan Gopal (2020), which outlines that while Industrial Tribunals have powers to address unfair labor practices and Article 14 violations regarding regularization, such relief cannot be granted if it offends constitutional provisions or lacks a basis in a valid scheme

Finally, the Court distinguished Sanat Kumar Dwivedi v. Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, which deal with continuity of service upon reinstatement

The Court observed that the appellant’s claim for regularization from 1990 was primarily defeated by the specific terms of the 2002 award, which directed reinstatement only w.e.f. 17.07.1996, rather than the date of his original termination in 1993

Because the appellant failed to challenge the 2002 award, the hiatus between 1993 and 1996 became a legally recognized "break in service"

The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Sanat Kumar Dwivedi and Gurpreet Singh, clarifying that while reinstatement typically implies continuity of service, such a presumption is rebutted when a judicial award explicitly stipulates a specific future date for reinstatement and omits continuity

The Court further noted that although the respondent had a scheme to regularize daily wagers based on seniority, the appellant’s break in service meant he did not meet the continuous service criteria at the relevant time

Consequently, there was no "hostile discrimination" or violation of Article 14, as the appellant was not similarly situated to those regularized without a break in service

It held that the Industrial Tribunal correctly determined that the appellant was not entitled to regularization due to the break in service resulting from the unchallenged 2002 award

The Court affirmed that since the initial engagement was not against a sanctioned post and the subsequent break in service disqualified the appellant under the existing regularization scheme, no relief could be granted

No order as to costs was made