ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Rule.
2. Petitioner was engaged as Beldar by MCD w.e.f. January 1, 1966. He was assigned duties of Mate on April 14, 1972. Respondent MCD has scheme for regularisation of daily wage workers and the seniority list of such daily wage workers is maintained as per which daily wagers are regularised on their turn when the posts on regular basis become available. The name of the petitioner was entered in the list of daily wage Beldars and as per that list his turn to get regularised on the post of Beldar came in 1975 and accordingly orders were passed regularising him as Beldar w.e.f. April 1, 1975. He accepted the same and started working as Beldar on regular basis and also getting benefit of regularisation i.e. salary and allowances etc. However thereafter he raised industrial dispute raising the grievance that he should have been regularised as painter as on the date when he was regularised as Beldar, as he was in fact working as Painter on daily wage basis. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal which was registered as ID No. 57/89 with the following terms of reference:
“Whether Shri Kashi Ram is entitled to be regularised as Beldar w.e.f. January 1, 1966 and mate since April 14, 1972 and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?”
3. Vide Award dated March 11, 1998 the Industrial Tribunal has refused to grant the relief to the petitioner deciding the reference against him. The operative part of the impugned award reads as under:
“I find no jurisdiction in the workman’s claim for his regulations as Beldar from the date January 1, 1966 and as Mate from April 14, 1972. It is not disputed that the management had a large number of daily rated employees. The management had framed a policy for regularising such employees. Having regard to the seniority of the workman as a Beldar he was regularised as Beldar from April 1, 1975 although at that time he was working as a Mate. The workman accepted all the benefits that came with regularisation and started working as Beldar thereafter. No direction for regularising him as Beldar from initial date of his appointment can be given as it will prejudiciously affect the claims of persons who are senior to him as Beldars. The workman did not protest when he was regularised as Beldar and took all the benefits. It was open to him to refuse regularisation as Beldar and continue as Mate on muster roll daily wages and wait for his turn for regularisation as Mate but he did not do so. There is nothing to show that posts permanent or temporary were not available against which the workman could be appointed as Beldar initially or as Mate from the date he claims regularisation. I find no merit in this reference. Award is passed against the workman.”
4. I find no infirmity in the award. It is rightly held by the Industrial Tribunal that when the turn of the petitioner to become regular Beldar on the basis of his entry as Beldar muster roll w.e.f January 1, 1966, he accepted the said benefit and thereafter continued to work as Beldar on regular basis. Therefore, it was not open for him to raise dispute after having been regularised as Beldar for over 10 years.
5. Even otherwise as per terms of reference, the petitioner is claiming regularisation as Beldar w.e.f. 1966 and as Mate from 1972 i.e. the dates of initial appointments on daily wage as Beldar and Painter respectively. Such a relief cannot be granted to petitioner as the regularisation has to be in terms of scheme framed for this purpose on the basis of seniority and as and when regular post became available. This aspect has already been discussed in detail in the case of MCD v. Gauri Shankar reported in 2000 Lab IC 662.
6. This writ petition is therefore without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. No orders as to costs.