DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. JUNAGADH JILLA MAZDOOR SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein has challenged the judgement and order dated 04.10.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1918 of 1998 whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the order dated 28.07.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (ITR) No. 159 of 1991 was confirmed.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent workman that he had been serving with the petitioner panchayat since 1968 and therefore he claimed benefit of permanency in service with effect from 01.01.1988. However, it is the case of the appellant herein that the respondent -workman was a part -time employee serving for six hours a day and therefore was not entitled to regularisation in service with attendant benefits. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Rajkot as to whether the respondent workman should be made permanent from 01.01.1988 and to give him all the benefits. The said reference was registered as ITR No. 159 of 1991. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.1997 directed the Executive Engineer R&B Division, Junagadh to consider the respondent as permanent employee from 01.01.1988 and that he should be given arrears from 01.01.1996 after deducting the wages already drawn by him.

(3.) MR . Hathi, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent workman was a part -time employee and was not on the regular establishment of the Panchayat. He submitted that mere length of service is no ground for regularising the services of such an employee even under the industrial law. We have considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the award of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has observed that in support of the defence taken by the appellant herein no documentary evidence was produced by the appellant and instead the respondent -workman produced sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. The Tribunal observed that considering the fact that the workman is working since last 34 years under the employer, there is a presumption in favour of the workman that there is a regular need of his work and hence he should be made permanent in Class IV cadre. The Tribunal also observed that in view of the fact that the other workers who were working with him on roads and were entrusted to the State Government and those workmen were made permanent as per the recommendations of Daulatbhai Parmar Committee, the respondent workman should be made permanent from 01.01.1988.