Undisputed parity with regularised juniors justifies regularisation despite purported bans on post creation.

The respondent worked as a wireman on muster roll from 16 August 1986.

He passed the electrician trade test in 1996, and his name appeared among the successful candidates in the direct-recruitment selection for electricians under the office memorandum dated 2 January 1996. However, he was not regularised.

The respondent subsequently raised an industrial dispute.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal held that similarly placed workmen junior to him had been regularised in 1995, 1996 and 1998, and directed his regularisation as an electrician from March 2000, along with promotion and consequential benefits.

The petitioner challenged the award, contending that the respondent had submitted his OBC certificate only in 2000, when a ban on creation of plan and non-plan posts was in force under the memorandum dated 5 August 1999.

The petitioner also relied on the principle that regularisation could take place only against sanctioned posts, as stated in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

The respondent relied on the regularisation of his juniors, the caste entry in his service book, and the prolonged and perennial nature of his employment.

Whether the Tribunal’s direction to regularise the respondent from March 2000, with promotion and other benefits, was legally unsustainable because of the alleged ban on creation of posts and the absence of a timely OBC certificate?

Whether the respondent was entitled to parity with similarly placed junior workmen who had been regularised before and after the alleged bans?

Whether the High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, ought to interfere with the Tribunal’s factual and legal determination in the absence of patent illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record?

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, holding that interference with an industrial adjudicator’s award is warranted only where the decision suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record; reappreciation of evidence or reassessment of its adequacy is generally impermissible.

It also applied the principle in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, that regularisation or absorption can ordinarily occur only against duly sanctioned posts and that the doctrine is intended to prevent backdoor entry into public employment.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that Uma Devi cannot be used to legitimise prolonged and exploitative engagement in work of a perennial nature, particularly where similarly placed employees have been regularised.

The principle of equal treatment and parity with similarly situated junior employees was also applied.

The Court found that the Tribunal’s award was principally based on the undisputed fact that workmen junior to the respondent, and similarly placed with him, had been regularised in 1995, 1996 and 1998.

Although the petitioner relied on the 5 August 1999 memorandum imposing a ban on the creation of posts, it had also relied on an earlier restriction dated 19 November 1985, despite which several junior workmen were regularised.

The record further showed that Kabir Das and Alexander Philips were regularised in 2004, with their seniority subsequently being ante-dated, indicating that regularisation continued even after the alleged ban.

The Court accepted that sanctioned posts are ordinarily necessary under Uma Devi, but held that the petitioner’s own conduct in regularising similarly placed and even junior employees could not be ignored.

The respondent had served for decades in work of a perennial nature, and the legitimacy of his OBC status was not disputed.

While the respondent should have submitted the OBC certificate earlier, the Tribunal had not granted him the benefit for the period preceding its submission.

In view of the established parity, the prolonged service, and the absence of any patent error in the award, interference in writ jurisdiction was not justified.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s direction regularising the respondent as an electrician with effect from March 2000, along with promotion and other benefits, was left undisturbed.