Sushil Kumar's petition for regularization as Assistant Salesman dismissed due to absence of sanctioned post and disparity in duties.
In a significant judgment rendered on July 8, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by Sushil Kumar, a daily rated worker seeking regularization as an Assistant Salesman. Presided over by Justice Amit Mahajan, the court upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, which had previously denied Kumar's request for regularization.
Sushil Kumar, who was employed with the Telangana State Handloom Weavers Housing Society Co-Op. Ltd., filed the petition to challenge the Tribunal's award dated March 26, 2004. The Tribunal had concluded that Kumar was not entitled to regularization due to the absence of sanctioned posts for Assistant Salesmen and the difference in the nature of work he performed compared to that of an Assistant Salesman.
The petitioner, initially employed as a daily rated worker since June 13, 1985, had his services terminated in 1987. However, the termination was overturned by the Labour Court in 1995, resulting in his reinstatement with partial back wages. Despite these developments, his bid for regularization was unsuccessful due to the lack of a sanctioned post.
The court, while dismissing the petition, emphasized that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is limited. Justice Mahajan noted that the court's role is supervisory, ensuring that tribunals act within their jurisdiction, and not to reweigh evidence or act as an appellate body.
The respondent's counsel, Ms. Raavi Birbal, argued that there were no vacant sanctioned posts for Assistant Salesmen, and the nature of work performed by Kumar was significantly different, further supporting the Tribunal's findings. The court concurred, pointing out that regularization requires an initial appointment by a competent authority and the existence of a sanctioned post, as per the legal principles set out in the landmark case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.
The court also addressed the inconsistencies in the deposition of the management witness, who admitted some similarities in the work performed by Kumar and regular Assistant Salesmen. Despite these admissions, the Tribunal's view that the work differed in scope and responsibility was deemed plausible by the High Court.
In its judgment, the court referred to previous cases, including Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reinforcing the principle that regularization cannot be granted in the absence of sanctioned posts.
Ultimately, the court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, concluding that Kumar's work, limited to customer assistance and errands, did not align with the responsibilities of an Assistant Salesman, which involved account management and stock responsibility.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Daily wager seeking regularization on post of Assistant Salesman - Regularization cannot be granted in absence of sanctioned post and disparity in nature of work between daily wager and Assistant Salesman.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India - Writ of Certiorari, Service Law, Labour Law, Evidence
