(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dtd. 19/8/2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara below Exh. 48 in Reference (I.T.) No. 137 of 2009, whereby the reference with regard to not extending the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days, has been rejected.
(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 16/12/1997 however, he was not extended the benefit of time scale as per the settlement dtd. 21/12/1989. He has submitted that thereafter, the benefit of time scale was given on 13/12/2009 and the reference of industrial dispute indicates that he has claimed the benefit of time scale after completion of 180 days from his initial appointment. He has submitted that the respondent authority did not place the petitioner as a daily wager and continued him as Badli Worker. He has submitted that the petitioner was denied the benefit of time scale since the settlement provides that after completion of 180 days, daily wager is to be placed in time scale hence, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid facts in its true perspective and, therefore, it is urged that the impugned award may be set aside.
(3.) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Naidu for the respondent has submitted that the issue is covered by catena of the decisions of this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgement dtd. 18/9/2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11717 of 2014 and allied matters, which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dtd. 4/7/2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1185 of 2014. He has submitted that for claiming the benefit under the settlement of 1989, there are three stipulations provided in Clause-20, such as after completion of 180 days as daily wager, the availability of the confirmed vacant post and seniority of the confirmed employees and only on satisfaction of these three conditions, the benefits of time scale can be extended.