If the officer in question issues the certificate without first confirming the above fact, he will be held liable for the laches. It was also stated that if a split in employment is discovered owing to the above cause, all other applicable material services of such conductor or employee would not be regularized. The judgement was passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Ram Prabesh Singh vs Bihar State Road Transport Corporation [W.P.(S) No. 3890 of 2009] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Justice Deepak Roshan.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners were posted as Conductors, a criminal case was lodged against them under Sections 452, 448, 384, 506 and 511 of I.P.C. for which both the petitioners were sent up for a trial and they were put off from duty. Lastly, vide judgment passed and both the petitioners were acquitted. The grievance of the petitioners is that after their acquittal; both made representations in the year, 1988 and requested the authorities to allow them to join their duties. However, they were restrained from joining their duties
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioners were appointed and were considered for regularization according to Memo and their names were at serial nos. 342 and 343, the respondents never took work from them and it is only on one day their joining were accepted. Though the petitioner represented several times, their claim for back wages from the date of regularization i.e. 03.02.1989 till the date of joining i.e. 10.03.2008 were never paid to them.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the issue of regularization has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and referred to the judgment and submits that the petitioner should have 4 filed application before the Labour Commissioner as they were having an alternative remedy. Replying to this contention of learned counsel for BSRTC, contended that this judgment cannot be applied with the case of the petitioner as this order has been passed in the case of a Union and not for any individual.
The court while dismissing the petition interpreted their reasoning behind the judgment as “It is true that the Supreme Court had directed to frame a scheme for regularization of the daily wage employee if they were working for a sufficiently long time but in the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above in my view the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the relevant facts as the relevant portion of Annexure-5 as it appears from the original record, was not attached with the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit.”
The court further observed that “the case of the petitioner was also considered and the respondents have come to a conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the case and given specific direction for regularization which is manifest from the original of Annexure-5, that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization of service.”