The Government’s post-judgment rejection of regularisation left the appeals for disposal, preserving the employee’s right to challenge the endorsement.

The employee relied on a Labour Court award dated 30 March 2002 directing the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Chincholi (TMC), to regularize the services of the listed employees without monetary benefits; the award attained finality after the TMC’s writ petitions were dismissed for want of steps in 2004.

After the Chief Officer did not act on the employee’s 16 June 2021 representation, the employee petitioned for a mandamus.

On 25 September 2024, the Single Judge directed the Chief Officer to regularize his services in accordance with the award within two months.

The State and the Chief Officer appealed, and the employee initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance.

After the Single Judge’s order, the State issued an endorsement dated 23 September 2025 rejecting the request for regularization.

At the hearing, the Chief Officer also undertook to pay the employee’s salary within 15 days.

The Labour Court’s award was made following a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and had attained finality after the challenge to it was dismissed.

The State invoked Section 11(9) of that Act as an alternative enforcement remedy, and relied on Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India; these were counsel’s submissions, not grounds on which the Division Bench decided the appeals.

The Court did not determine the substantive legality of the endorsement or the regularization claim; it reserved the employee’s right to challenge the endorsement in accordance with law and directed that any such challenge be decided independently, with all contentions open.

The State had considered the Chief Officer’s recommendation and issued an endorsement rejecting regularization after the Single Judge’s order.

In view of that subsequent decision, the Court held that nothing survived for consideration in the appeals, without adjudicating whether the endorsement was legally valid or whether the employee was entitled to regularization.

Separately, the Chief Officer’s undertaking to pay salary within 15 days was recorded; the Court stated that the employee could file a contempt petition if payment was not made within that period.

The contempt petition was also disposed of as not surviving for consideration, while preserving the employee’s liberty to initiate contempt proceedings if the Chief Officer failed to pay salary within 15 days.