DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. YUNUS BINMOHMMED BAVAJEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, first party employer, in Reference (IT) No.11 of 1994, has filed this petition challenging the award dated 08.11.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat allowing the reference and directing the petitioner-corporation to place the respondent-workman on timescale from the date the workman had completed 180 days and grant him all the consequential benefits after deducting the days of his absence, with the cost of Rs.500/-.

(2.) IN this petition, on 23.09.2003, this Court (Coram: R.M. Doshit, J., as she then was), issued Rule and granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 8(C) staying the operation and implementation of the award. The said relief came to be continued till final disposal of this petition vide order dated 11.11.2003 passed by this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J.).

(3.) THE respondent-workman, through Union, raised industrial dispute that despite he was working as off day reliever watchman since October, 1979 and thus, had completed 180 days and even 240 days, he was wrongfully denied the benefit of settlement whereunder, the employees completing 180 days, were given benefit of timescale and other consequential benefits arising therefrom. THE Government vide its order dated 19.02.1994 referred the same to the competent forum wherein, it was numbered as Reference (IT) No.11 of 1994. THE said reference was resisted by the petitioner-first party in the reference on various grounds including the ground that the workman was merely a Badli workman and not covered under the said terms of settlement and hence, not entitled for the benefit flowing from the settlement. THE Industrial Tribunal rejected the said submission and considered that the workman being Badli worker or not Badli worker would not be relevant and material factor for granting benefit of timescale under the settlement and allowed the reference and issued direction as stated hereinabove vide order dated 08.11.2001.