JUDGMENT
Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner workman, praying inter alia for quashing of the award dated 5th June, 1990 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the relief of regularization was granted to the petitioner workman w.e.f. the date of reference i.e. 10th September, 1985 instead of granting the same from the date of his appointment, i.e., 2nd June, 1977.
2. A brief narration of the relevant facts is necessary. The petitioner workman was employed with the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) w.e.f. 2nd June, 1977 as an Assistant Sanitary Inspector and was being treated as a daily rated/casual/muster roll worker and was being paid lesser remuneration than those of his counterparts who were being treated as regular employees. The petitioner workman served a demand notice on the respondent MCD seeking regularization w.e.f. the date of his joining the services. Thereafter conciliation proceedings followed and on failure of the same, vide reference dated 10th September, 1985, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal on the following terms:
Whether Shri Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal is entitled to be regularised on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector in the pay scale of Rs.260-400, if so, from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect.
3. The petitioner workman claimed that he was entitled to be regularized on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector in the pay scale of Rs, 260-400 with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 2nd June, 1977. In its written statement, the respondent MCD took the stand that the regular pay scale is allowed only to those employees who were recruited on regular basis and who fulfillled all the conditions of the Recruitment Rules (RRs) notified for the post of ASI and that the petitioner workman did not fulfilll the conditions of the RRs as he did not have the requisite qualification of matriculation with Science.
4. The respondent/management took a plea in its written statement that the reference was bad as there was no material before the Conciliation Officer to make a reference. On merits, it was pleaded that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer against specific sanction and was entitled only to daily rate of payment and that regular scale is allowed only to those employees who were recruited on regular basis and who fulfilll all the conditions of the Recruitment Rules notified for the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector, which the petitioner workman did not.
5. The Tribunal, however noted that initially, the qualification to the post of ASI was a Sanitary Training Diploma from an institute recognized by the respondent MCD. The Labour Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner workman had obtained the said diploma from Delhi Vishwa Vidyapeeth, but later he again obtained the said diploma from the All India Institute of Local Self-Government, Bombay, as the particular diploma given by the said institute was recognized by the respondent MCD. But subsequently, the respondent MCD changed its RRs and it was for the first time on 31st December, 1982 that RRs were introduced for the post of ASI in Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, whereunder it was made compulsory for a candidate to the post of ASI to have passed matriculation with science. As a result, on the ground that as the said requirement of matriculation with science did not exist at the time when the petitioner workman was recruited in the year 1977 and that the RRs for the post of ASI were introduced for the first time in the year 1982, the Tribunal held the petitioner workman to be entitled to be regularized on the post of ASI in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. the date of reference, i.e., 10th September, 1985 and it was further held that w.e.f. from the said date he would also be entitled to the minimum of the scale with all the annual increments in that scale and all other consequential benefits of D.A. etc., as also to the revised pay scale as recommended by the 4th Pay Commission and adopted by the respondent MCD.
6. Before recording the respective contentions of the parties, it is pertinent to mention that the award has been implemented by the respondent management as the petitioner workman was regularized on the post of ASI from the date of reference i.e., w.e.f. 10th September, 1985. It is also worth mentioning that during the pendency of the present writ petition, an application was preferred by the petitioner workman to implead the Delhi Jal Board as respondent No. 3 for the reason that the petitioner workman was an employee of the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking which was an autonomous body of the respondent MCD at the relevant time. However, later on the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking became a statutory entity, known as the Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent DJB’), thus the petitioner workman having become an employee of the respondent DJB, made it imperative for the respondent DJB to be added as a respondent. Accordingly the DJB was added as respondent No.3 in the memo of parties.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner workman submitted that the impugned award was erroneous in so far as it granted regularization to the petitioner workman from the date of reference, instead of the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 2nd June, 1977. It was stated that the Labour Court erred in law in not appreciating that the respondent MCD by their own resolution had, amongst others, decided to grant relief of regularization w.e.f. 1st May, 1982 to the employees employed on daily wages during 1977 and 1979 and therefore, in any case the petitioner was entitled to being regularized w.e.f. 1st April, 1982 instead of from 10th September, 1985.
8. It was further argued that in any case, the Labour Court ought to have remitted the matter back to the respondent MCD with directions that the petitioner workman be regularized as per the rules of the respondent MCD instead of fixing the date of regularization w.e.f the date of reference, so that the petitioner could have been regularized w.e.f. 1st April, 1982 as per the resolution of the respondent MCD.
9. Per contra, counsel for the respondent DJB contended that the petitioner workman did not qualify according to the RRs even as o 10th September, 1985 since he did not possess the educational qualification of having science in matriculation, but still he was regularized in accordance with the award of Labour Court. It was stated that he could therefore not insist on regularization from a back date, i.e., neither from the date of his initial appointment in 1977 nor in accordance with the resolution of the respondent MCD in the year 1982.
10. It was also submitted that neither of the pleas taken by the petitioner workman in the present petition were taken before the Labour Court, and it is neither permissible nor appropriate for him to take the said pleas for the first time before this Court in the present proceedings.
11. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have also carefully perused the documents placed on record including the impugned award. It is necessary to state at the very outset that none of the contentions as raised by the petitioner workman in the present petition were raised by it before the Labour Court. The resolution of the respondent MCD on which the petitioner workman has sought to place reliance to state that as per the resolution the MCD had itself decided to grant regularization w.e.f. 1st May, 1982 to the employees employed on daily wages during 1977 and 1979 and therefore the petitioner workman was also entitled to be regularized in accordance with the said resolution at least w.e.f. 1st May, 1982 even if not from the date of his initial appointment in 1977, was never brought to the notice of the Labour Court. The said plea therefore cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the present proceedings.
12. In the absence of the said plea being taken before the Labour Court, it is also not appropriate for the petitioner workman to contend that the Labour Court ought to have remitted the matter back to the respondent MCD with directions to regularize the petitioner workman in accordance with its own rules.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or invalidity in the impugned award so as to warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.