Delhi HC Dismisses Daily Wager's Bid for Regularisation as Assistant Salesman, Upholds Tribunal Award

A daily rated worker who sought regularisation on a post with no sanctioned vacancy and different duties lost his writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sushil Kumar, a daily rated worker employed with the Telangana State Handloom Weavers Housing Society Co-operative Ltd., who had challenged a 2004 Industrial Tribunal award rejecting his claim for regularisation as an Assistant Salesman from his initial date of appointment. Justice Amit Mahajan, sitting singly, held that the Tribunal's findings were plausible and did not warrant interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of a writ court. Two independent grounds supported the dismissal: the absence of any sanctioned vacancy for the post and a material difference between the petitioner's actual duties and those of an Assistant Salesman.

From Termination in 1987 to a Regularisation Dispute

Sushil Kumar had joined the respondent establishment as a daily rated muster roll employee on 13 June 1985. His services were terminated on 2 March 1987. The Labour Court set that termination aside on 21 October 1995, directing reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

The management challenged that award in the Delhi High Court, but ultimately withdrew the writ petition on 6 August 1996 after the parties settled. Under the settlement, Kumar was reinstated with effect from 28 August 1996, with 50% back wages.

Following reinstatement, Kumar raised a fresh demand: that he be regularised on the post of Assistant Salesman from his initial date of appointment in 1985. That dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, which registered it as I.D. No. 37/1998. After examining the evidence of both sides, the Tribunal passed its award on 26 March 2004, holding that Kumar was not entitled to regularisation. Kumar then filed W.P.(C) 11179/2005 before the Delhi High Court, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash that award.

What the Tribunal Found

The Tribunal's reasoning, reproduced in the High Court's order, rested on two factual findings. First, it found that there was no regular vacant post of Assistant Salesman. The management's witness, Manager Ravi Awasthi, had stated categorically that no such vacancy existed beyond the regular Assistant Salesmen already working with the establishment.

Second, the Tribunal found that the work of an Assistant Salesman and that of the petitioner were altogether different. A regular Assistant Salesman carried responsibility for the entire operation, including stock and accounts. Kumar, by contrast, was functioning as a helper. The Tribunal also noted that Kumar himself had admitted in his deposition that he was recruited as a daily wage worker and had continued in that capacity.

Before the High Court, Kumar's counsel argued that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. Emphasis was placed on portions of Ravi Awasthi's cross-examination in which he had acknowledged that Kumar's work was of a regular nature and similar to the witness's own work. Counsel also pointed out that the witness had admitted there were no sanctioned posts of Assistant Salesmen in other showrooms even though Assistant Salesmen were working there.

The respondent's counsel, Ms. Raavi Birbal, opposed the petition and maintained that there was no proof that Kumar had received wages for 240 days, no evidence of appointment as an Assistant Salesman on a regular basis, and a substantial difference in the nature of work between a regular Assistant Salesman and the petitioner.

The Limits of Certiorari Jurisdiction

Justice Mahajan began the legal analysis by restating the boundaries of writ jurisdiction. A court exercising certiorari jurisdiction performs a supervisory function to ensure that an inferior tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction; it cannot act as an appellate court, review evidence afresh, or reweigh competing inferences. The Court cited Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, (2023) 16 SCC 462, for the proposition that a writ of certiorari will not lie merely because a tribunal's decision is wrong on facts or merits.

Applying that standard, the Court found the Tribunal's view a plausible one. Although the management witness had said at one point in cross-examination that his nature of job and that of the petitioner was similar, he also stated elsewhere that their duties were different. The Tribunal had weighed this inconsistency and still concluded that the petitioner was performing helper functions — safai, cleaning the counter, and running errands to the bank and post office — rather than the accounting and stock responsibilities of a regular Assistant Salesman. Kumar's own deposition described attending to customers and keeping sarees in counters, with no mention of accounting work.

The Court held that such a view, even if not the only possible one, did not warrant interference in writ proceedings.

No Sanctioned Post, No Absorption

Beyond the question of duties, the Court addressed the absence of a sanctioned vacancy as a separate and sufficient ground. Justice Mahajan referred to Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2023 INSC 105, where the Supreme Court upheld a Division Bench ruling that regularisation could not be granted unless there was a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee was working and the initial appointment had been made by a competent authority. That framework traces back to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1.

In the present case, the management witness had maintained throughout that no sanctioned post of Assistant Salesman was available beyond those already filled. The petitioner had also been unable to show that he was appointed against a vacant post of Assistant Salesman.

Kumar had named certain juniors in his written submissions who had allegedly been regularised, but that ground had not been raised before the Tribunal. The respondent contested the assertion. The Court further noted that Kumar had withdrawn his own application to place additional documents on record in support of that claim. Given those circumstances, the Court declined to examine the point.

The Shripal Precedent Distinguished

Kumar had also relied on Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144. In that case, the Supreme Court had granted relief because the workmen were performing the same tasks as regular Gardeners and there was a consistent need for permanent staff. The Court distinguished that decision on the ground that the Tribunal in the present matter had specifically found that Kumar's work was different from that of an Assistant Salesman. The factual premise that justified relief in Shripal was absent here.

Outcome

Justice Amit Mahajan found no reason to interfere with the impugned award dated 26 March 2004. The writ petition W.P.(C) 11179/2005 was dismissed on 8 July 2026.